Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

General Teaching Council

Mr. Vernon Coaker: When the General Teaching Council will be operational; and if he will make a statement on its introduction. [81514]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): From September 2000, the General Teaching Council for England will be the new professional body for teachers. For the first time, teachers will have a real role in regulating their profession, and we expect that the GTC will quickly become a key player in shaping the education service of the future. The Government are committed to revitalising teaching as a leading profession, and the GTC is a powerful symbol of our drive towards achieving that. The first election to the GTC is expected to take place in spring 2000.

Mr. Coaker: Is my hon. Friend aware of quite how much teachers welcome the establishment of the General Teaching Council? They have long wanted a professional body that is able to represent their interests and articulate their views on a wide range of education issues. Will he confirm that part of the Government's drive towards addressing education issues is to re-establish the teaching profession's morale, which is so essential if we are to raise education standards in our schools?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the reform is long overdue and should have been made decades ago. It is also a very important step in establishing and strengthening the status and standing of the teaching profession in the community as a whole, and in ensuring that professional standards run right through our education system. I am absolutely delighted that this Government have put the reform on the statute book and will bring it into effect. It will have a profound effect on classroom morale.

Mrs. Theresa May: The Minister is well aware of our concerns about the General Teaching Council, and the fact that it is not the body that it needs to be if it is to encourage more people to join the teaching

profession. We are also concerned about the extreme control that the Secretary of State has over members of the General Teaching Council—is not that yet another example of the way in which the Government seek to control from the centre, rather than allowing teachers and the profession to make decisions for themselves?
Given the recently released figures showing that the Government will yet again miss the teacher recruitment target—which the Government reduced, despite the fact that there are still 10,000 teacher vacancies in our schools—when will they accept the real classroom crisis of teaching recruitment and do something about it?

Mr. Clarke: It is a little rich for the hon. Lady to make that point, given that for 18 years the previous Government did absolutely nothing to address those issues. Although I am glad that she has given her general support, her remarks were a bit rich.
I defend the role of the Secretary of State in nominating members to the General Teaching Council on two important grounds. First, there is a public interest in regulation of the teaching profession. It is right that there should be such an interest, and it should be expressed by the Secretary of State in nominating people to the council. Secondly, the Secretary of State's nominations will give real flexibility to the council as it begins to evolve. In the regulations, we specify the Secretary of State's specific responsibility to take account of the needs of parents and of children with special educational needs. I believe that those are very important developments in ensuring that the General Teaching Council will evolve into what we wish it to be—an effective, strong and independent representative of the profession.
The Green Paper, the GTC initiative and all our other specific initiatives and measures —on science and on maths, for example—are designed to tackle teacher recruitment. It would be very refreshing if the hon. Lady gave us some support in those initiatives, rather than simply seeking to niggle from the sidelines, as she so consistently does.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that until the profession unites into a council, it will never achieve its full potential? Will he say that he intends urgently to press on and attempt to knock some sense into the profession?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said on a number of occasions, and I believe it to be the case, that the divided representation of the teaching trade unions damages the profession. I hope that the General Teaching Council will play a role in unifying and strengthening the profession's role in the provision of education, which is why I think that establishing the council is such an important step. I am glad to have his support.

Test Results

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement about the inclusion of information about (a) average class sizes and (b) money spent per pupil in


future published tables of test results at ages 11 and 14; and if he will publish such results and information for tests at age seven. [81516]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have been trying to work out from which wing of the Conservative party this question comes.
We currently have no plans to increase further the amount of statistical data and information published in performance tables. However, I should—under pressure, of course, from the hon. Gentleman—be prepared to publish details of the pupil-teacher ratios and the rise in the number of children being taught in classes of over 30 pupils in the last 10 years of the previous Government.

Dr. Lewis: May I reassure the Secretary of State that, like all my questions, this one comes from the mainstream of the Conservative party? Does he accept that there are three main probable causes of the inadequacy of primary school pupils turned out into secondary education—first, the inadequate sums being spent; secondly, there are too many children per class; and, thirdly, rotten teaching methods? Does he accept that, until we publish data on class sizes and amounts spent per pupil, it will be impossible to tell whether the first two causes are behind inadequate results at the primary level, or whether the cause is really, as I suspect, rotten teaching methods?

Mr. Blunkett: From that, I deduce that the question came from the absolute denial wing of the Conservative party. Yes, there was an £80 per pupil drop in spending under the Conservatives. Yes, there will be a £235 per pupil increase under this Government in their first term in office. Yes, there was a continuing worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio; yes, we have already reversed that, and, for the first time in 10 years, primary pupil-teacher ratios have improved. We have managed to get 130,000 infant children into classes of fewer than 30 in the first year that we embarked on the attempt. Yes, of course, rotten teaching methods make a difference—which is why we are always glad to receive the odd moment of support from the Conservative party for the literacy and numeracy strategies that they did not introduce.

Mr. David Willetts: What does the Secretary of State say to the school that I visited last week, which because of the rigid implementation of the class size policy is having to turn away pupils whose parents want them educated there? Because funding is allocated per capita, the school is losing money too, and because it is losing money it will have to lose teaching assistants, so there will be fewer adults per class. Everybody is losing because of the rigid implementation of the policy. Many schools throughout the country are trapped in that way. What does the Secretary of State say to them?

Mr. Blunkett: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visit schools among the majority that have discovered that with the investment that we have made already in the reduction of class sizes, there are 2,700 extra teachers and 600 extra classrooms. That has allowed us to accommodate a further 12,000 parental preferences for schools under admissions pressure such as the one that he has described. In other words, we are reducing the number of children in classes of more than 30 at the same time as we are expanding

preference and increasing the number of classrooms and teachers. That is the exact reverse of what the Conservative Government achieved in their 18 years in power.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve standards of achievement in further and higher education. [81517]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): The Government have shown by word and deed their determination to improve standards of achievement in both further and higher education. In further education, we established a standards fund of £35 million this year, and £80 million next year. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is developing new methods of ensuring rigorous and comparable standards in higher education.

Mr. Cawsey: I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours, and I am looking forward to his visit to my constituency tomorrow. Does he accept that the need to drive up standards in the post-16 sector should be met by adequate and fair funding? Is he aware that studies by the National Audit Office and others have shown that, in my area, for instance, John Leggott sixth form college, which enjoys a national reputation for the standards achieved by its comprehensive intake, has funding 30 per cent. lower than the sixth form of the Queen Elizabeth school in Gainsborough, which is a selective grammar school? Will he use his good offices to look into the figures and ensure that all schools in the post-16 sector get fair allocation of resources, to achieve the higher standards that he wants to put in place?

Mr. Mudie: I am indeed looking forward to my visit to sunny Scunny, as we call it in Yorkshire. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating John Leggott sixth form college, which has a deserved national reputation for its excellence. His remarks must be set against the November settlement announced by the Secretary of State, which put an additional £725 million into the further education sector. None the less, I am aware, as is the rest of the House, of the specific point that he made. We recognise that the system that we inherited from the previous Government has its inequalities, and that is one matter that may fall to be dealt with under the post-16 review.

Mr. Phil Willis: It is the first time I have heard Scunthorpe described as sunny Scunny, but I will take the Minister's word for it. The Liberal Democrats support the Government's attempts to drive up standards in further and higher education, but does the Minister accept that it is also important to meet the access targets? Does he also accept that the disastrous introduction of tuition fees has meant a decline in the number of applicants to higher education, including a 28 per cent. decrease in the number of mature applicants? Is it not time for the Government to abandon the Prime Minister's target of 500,000 extra students by the end of this Parliament?

Mr. Mudie: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. I shall give the House some interesting figures. In 1994, the number of applications


for home undergraduate places was 2.3 million. In 1996, long before tuition fees, the number was down to 1.753 million. For 1998, the figure was 1.791 million. The 1997 figure was higher because the loans system gave mature students an opportunity to apply, and 1997 was an exceptional year compared to the trend for 1994–98. If the figure for 1997 is removed, the number of applications rose in 1998.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that the public standing of universities, and Consequent league tables, tend to be based on research excellence and research funding—I do not wish to argue with that important focus—does my hon. Friend feel that the universities are striking the right balance between research reputation and high-quality teaching? Does he agree that we need to do far more to drive up teaching standards in our universities, in an age when more of our young people are going to university from a variety of backgrounds and tuition fees have to be paid?

Mr. Mudie: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have put an additional £1.4 billion into research, but we are aware of the need to keep a balance. As my original answer accepts, we are always keen to improve standards and we are aware of the need to work with the higher education sector to keep improving teaching standards.

Mr. Damian Green: I am delighted to hear that the Minister will visit John Leggott college, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) that when I was last in Scunthorpe visiting the college it poured with rain, so the town may not live up to the Minister's advertisement for it.
In the context of the post-16 review, the Minister mentioned the great concern about the inequality of funding between different types of sixth form institution. Can he give a guarantee to school sixth forms that none of them will be closed as a result of the post-16 review against the wishes of local parents, teachers and education authorities?

Mr. Mudie: I shall certainly give that guarantee unequivocally. Sixth forms have an important part to play, alongside further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Anything in the post-16 review that did not build on sixth forms or, especially in the inner cities, failed to strengthen, improve and expand them would be strongly opposed by the Government.

Child Care

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What progress has been made in increasing the number of out-of-school child care places. [81518]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The national child care strategy continues to make a major impact locally. I am delighted to say that since April 1998 we have funded the creation of more than 61,000 new child care places, exceeding our target for that year. Indeed, in the first two years of this Labour Government, we have created more new child care places than the previous Government created in their 18 miserable years in office.

Mr. Cunningham: I welcome that statement, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that this is

an important matter, both nationally and in Coventry. Will she give the general figures for Coventry, and the particular figures for my constituency of Coventry, South?

Ms Hodge: I shall be delighted to do so. The figures available so far for Coventry in 1998–99 show that 266 new child care places have been created, in clubs such the All Saints club and the Pilgrim club, and in colleges such as Henley college and Coventry city college. Moreover, my Department has just given full approval to Coventry's plans for next year, under which the intention is to create a further 893 new child care places. Funding has also been received for 1,384 new nursery places for three-year-olds, starting in September.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most interested in the Minister's reply. I recently visited some pre-schools in my constituency—the Jolly Tots and the St. Paul's pre-schools in Poynton—and I am due to visit one or two more in the near future. Will the Minister say why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so concerned about the large number of pre-school closures, of which there have been about 1,500 recently? Another 1,700 are scheduled to close over the next year.
I am very interested in this sector of education, as I believe that children's experiences at that early age can dictate what happens in their subsequent educational career. Will the Minister comment, and explain why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so worried, and why so many pre-schools are closing?

Ms Hodge: I am delighted to be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, and will have been here when the previous Government introduced the disastrous nursery voucher scheme. That, more than anything else, was responsible for damaging the pre-school sector, both private and voluntary, in this country.
We are most concerned that the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the pre-school movement in general should play a full part in the expansion of early education and child care places. That is why we have provided £500,000, both this year and last year, to help pre-schools in financial difficulties. We have also established a review to see how we can ensure that the pre-schools play a full part in the expansion of early years education and child care. That review is due to report to me in August.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that the Government recognise the importance of, and the need for, pre-school education. Will she say how groups in my constituency that are eager to provide the service should go about receiving Government support for their endeavours? Can she assure me that the Government will continue to support pre-school groups, in my constituency and in the Wakefield area in general, to help them to continue the very important service that they provide to many families?

Ms Hodge: We have established in each education area an early years child care and development partnership. That is the context in which we hope that plans will be developed in every locality to respond to the needs and preferences of parents and children and to implement the expansion that we want. We are anxious that every sector should contribute to the expansion of early years


education and child care. We have placed a duty on those partnerships to ensure the health of both the voluntary and private sectors, and therefore to ensure their continued and sustained contribution.

Mr. David Willetts: The Minister did not address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The Pre-School Learning Alliance has specifically identified as part of the problem:
Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership arrangements created by the present Government.
The Government are driving diversity out of the system, and many parents do not believe that a state primary school is the best form of provision for their four-year-old child. Pre-School Learning Alliance places are closing, and 1,700 of them are in danger this year. Free-standing specialist nursery schools are also in danger of closing. Is it not the case that merely talking about reviews does nothing to address the serious problems that other forms of pre-school provision face?

Ms Hodge: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his views on parental choice. It is, therefore, completely hypocritical of him to stand at the Dispatch Box denying parental choice and blaming parents for choosing one setting as opposed to another for their child.
The previous Government's nursery voucher scheme began the massive threat to and decline of pre-schools. This Government, in both our years in office, have put £500,000 into support for pre-schools, and, with the support of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, have set up a review, not to find out why pre-schools are declining but to see how they can contribute to the expansion of early years education and child care places.

Housing Costs (Students)

Dr. Lynne Jones: What discussions he has had with the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Environment, Transport and the Regions about help with housing costs for students. [81520]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): My Secretary of State is in regular and continuing contact with colleagues on issues relating to student support. The Government will take steps to support students in the greatest need as and when opportunities arise. For students in higher education, help with housing costs is provided in grants and loans through the student support system. Help for students who have financial difficulties is also available from the access funds of their institutions.

Dr. Jones: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues consider the plight of my constituent, Susan, who is on a 16-hour-a-week access to health studies course? She is caught by the 16-hour rule, which makes her ineligible for housing benefit. She is also ineligible for more than a small amount of access funding. She works as many hours as she can as a care assistant, but her income is still insufficient to meet her £45-a-week rent in full. Surely the system should do more to help people such as Susan to get out of low pay and benefit dependency and into worthwhile careers such as nursing.

Mr. Mudie: I am aware of the case raised by my hon. Friend. No matter how flexible the system is, however,

there will always be individuals or groups with particular circumstances that it does not address. The Secretary of State is continually aware of that problem, and we constantly move to try to help individuals or vulnerable groups when particular cases arise.
For the individual concerned in this case, the immediate answer would be her institution's access and hardship funds. The amount that she has received from the institution is insufficient, but there is a possible solution, which I should like to discuss further with my hon. Friend. The course concerned is an access course that does not usually give any support to the student. It is a pre-statutory service—I hope hon. Members understand what I mean by that. We might, therefore, discuss with the institution involved why the course does not take 15¾ hours, as that would open housing and other benefits to the student concerned. Why 16 has been chosen as the magic number of hours is an interesting point, particularly when it comes to access funds.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister will be aware that many students live in houses in multiple occupation. The Government's recent Green Paper on HMOs exempted university accommodation from inspection. However, universities are getting rid of more and more of their own accommodation. Does that not mean that more and more students will be at risk in HMOs?

Mr. Mudie: The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I believe that an all-party parliamentary group is conducting a dialogue with the Minister for Local Government and Housing and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A policy document or a White Paper on multiple occupation will be issued soon because it is a particular worry. The question whether universities will be included is a matter for discussion, consultation and decision. I am delighted that individual Members with strong university bases in their constituency have raised this because it is a growing problem that affects localities and even relationships in cities where universities have great numbers of students.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I share with my hon. Friend the experience that I had this week of meeting a young woman called Hazel who is leaving care to go into higher education? Not only has she shown tremendous intelligence to get herself qualifications and tremendous resilience to battle through the disadvantages of a disrupted life and a number of years in care, but she has shown the supreme good judgment to go to Lancaster university on a social work course. Does my hon. Friend agree that help with housing costs is essential if we are to help ever more bright young people cast off the disadvantages of being in care and make it into higher education?

Mr. Mudie: I do not think that there is a Member in the House who would disagree with my hon. Friend. Hazel indeed deserves congratulations. Her achievement in gaining a university place is no mean feat, given the normal background of a youngster in care. I know that my Secretary of State is particularly concerned about that group. All hon. Members, to be fair, would welcome my


hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health's moves to help youngsters leaving care. The attention given to youngsters leaving care was greatly welcomed and long overdue and it is a wonderful example of this House responding to something which has been a disgrace for years.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I have experienced personally the deep sorrow that a family in my constituency had when their daughter, a student living away from home, died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Does the Minister agree that in principle no public funding for housing costs should be awarded to students or others living in a property, whether in multiple or single occupancy, where health and safety checks have not been carried out?

Mr. Mudie: This matter will be dealt with by the DETR White Paper, and deservedly so. The hon. Gentleman has raised the case from one perspective. The other perspective concerns how youngsters are treated and the conditions in which they have to live in many university towns. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have a resonance which we hope will be reflected in the White Paper.

Post-devolution Funding

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss post—devolution funding arrangements. [81521]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have regular meetings with members of the CVCP and last met them on 17 March 1999. They have made no approaches to me on this particular topic, but obviously I would be happy see them, as ever.

Mr. Dalyell: What reflection does the Secretary of State have on the evidence, to which I have drawn his Department's attention, from the CVCP and the Scottish universities to the committee under Sir George Quigley reviewing the fee anomaly and on the part that that anomaly might play in attracting fewer students to Scottish universities from England and Wales? Is the downturn of 18.4 per cent. registered by St. Andrews university to be expected by other Scottish universities? Both Heriot-Watt university and Edinburgh university are worried.

Mr. Blunkett: The figures published on Tuesday by the higher education statistics agency showed that we must compare like with like. Although there was a downturn in the number of students applying last year to Scottish universities from England, the number registered as taking up places for the current academic year rose by 3 per cent. Although there was a downturn in those entering in the first year, there was an upturn in those entering later, in the second year of four-year courses. Enrolment, as opposed to applications, was up. That is encouraging, both for Scottish universities and for the new system. I was encouraged when I was in Scotland yesterday to learn that the university with the largest number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, Paisley, had had an upturn in applications for the coming year.

Capital Allocation (Schools)

Mr. Andrew Dismore: What has been the total increased capital allocation to schools in Hendon since May 1997. [81522]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): Schools in Hendon have benefited from approximately £2.31 million of grant under the new deal for schools and to remove outside toilets. Nine schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have benefited. Both initiatives were launched by this Government after May 1997.

Mr. Dismore: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and say how much not only I, but the children at the schools affected welcome the additional funds? I recently visited Deansbrook school, which welcomes the announcement because it will no longer have to put up with old huts, but will have a brand new building. St. Vincent's primary school welcomes it because it can now merge on to one site instead of using a split site with a main road through the middle. Copthall school welcomes it because it will get a brand new building. That is excellent news for my constituency and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his announcement

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am finding it difficult to think of some controversy to generate. The truth is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have appreciated the support that we have been able to give in capital spending to schools in their constituencies. Many schools that have been waiting for decades for resources to be spent on improving them are beginning to get them. There is much more to be done, but I believe that we are going down the right path.

New Deal for Schools

Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received concerning the outcome of the new deal for schools: capital programme phase 3. [81523]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): Since the announcement of successful projects under the new deal for schools, the Department has received many representations from hon. Members, local education authorities and schools, including one from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barnes: I appreciate that everything cannot be funded at once, especially the provision of new schools. Derbyshire has had resources allocated to build a new school at Swadlincote. In my constituency, the Holymoorside school needs to be replaced. I encourage the Minister to examine our proposals. I hope that he will visit the school because it is vital that provision be made for it in next year's allocation. Derbyshire has many


problems with the state of its schools and a strong case can be made for this one, although we realise that it was stuck behind another application.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend understands the situation fully and argued a powerful case for Holymoorside school. I am prepared to visit it to see for myself the conditions about which he is concerned.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): What a man!

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that under phase 3 of the new deal for schools, the amount per pupil paid for Derbyshire was greater than for any other shire county except one. It had a good settlement, but I am acutely aware of my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. John Bercow: Can the Minister confirm that only 1,053 out of 5,909 bids under phase 3 of the new deal for schools have been successful? As Allan Shaw county school in Steeple Claydon and Chackmore school in my constituency have had their bids rejected by him, can he confirm that where health and safety considerations are involved, special priority will be attached to bids by the schools in question?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation of the terrible backlog in school spending that we have inherited. I repeat that, although we are making good progress, we are the first to recognise that there is a long way to go to deal with the problems. I have received representations from the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the two schools that he mentioned. He wrote to me and I wrote back with a full answer. I am speaking from memory, but I think that the schools were not given sufficiently high priority by the LEA to be given a grant. He is right about health and safety. It is the first consideration in the new deal for school spending and the first criterion under which LEAs submit their bids.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I spent 25 years in classrooms before I entered the House, the last of which was spent teaching in a portakabin. I wonder whether hon. Members realise how dispiriting it is for children and teachers to have their lessons in sheds that are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. I welcome the effect that the new deal capital programme is having in my constituency. It is making a start on taking out the 18-year inheritance from the Conservative party of terrible portakabin classrooms, especially at Carlton Colville primary school and Warren special school. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to continue the work of ridding this country of these horrible classrooms? They are wrongly referred to as mobiles, as they rarely move, but they are on the move now.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right; he has highlighted an important point. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given priority to the new deal for schools precisely because, unlike other capital allocation processes, it focuses on dilapidation and serious problems of the type that my hon. Friend describes, and health and safety, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)

referred, among other issues. The new deal programme focuses on ridding this country of the terrible backlog of 18 years of Conservative neglect.

Mr. David Heath: When the Minister is reviewing the new deal for schools, will he reflect on two things? One is the proliferation of bidding processes, which Labour decried in opposition, and the other is the massive scale of the problem of temporary classrooms referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). There are 800 so-called temporary classrooms in Somerset, which represent a huge inefficiency in terms of cost and the teaching environment. It is a massive problem which needs to be addressed with huge resources to provide the sort of teaching accommodation that we want for our children.

Mr. Clarke: We are addressing the problem with huge resources—far more, I may say, than the penny on income tax that the hon. Gentleman's party has suggested. We acknowledge that there is a massive amount to be done, and we are doing it. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the bidding process, but that is why we are asking LEAs to introduce asset management plans. We are funding the process precisely to achieve the most efficient local assessment of needs, management of capital and all the rest of it, so that the bidding process becomes less important. We will have a better system as a result of that and of the Government's commitment.

University Research

Mrs. Anne Campbell: In what ways the additional funding for research announced in the comprehensive spending review will be used by the universities. [81524]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): The substantial investment in research announced as a result of the CSR, totalling some £1.4 billion over three years, will allow research in universities to be transformed. It will allow for institutions to invest in the modern equipment and infrastructure needed to maintain the United Kingdom's world-class science base.

Mrs. Campbell: The additional money is welcome after 18 years of miserable Tory neglect. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that universities, such as Cambridge, that already have a world-beating record in research will benefit from the extra money? When will an announcement be made about the allocation of funds as a result of the joint infrastructure fund bid?

Mr. Mudie: I thank my hon. Friend for accompanying me during my visit to her constituency this week, and for introducing me to so many committed professionals who are delivering such an excellent service to the people of Cambridge.
In answer to her question, the university of Cambridge has already received £3 million for the Babraham Institute and there will be a decision about the other funds in May.

Further and Higher Education

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What was the percentage of school leavers going on to further or higher education in the local authority areas with the (a) lowest and (b) highest percentages in the most recent year for which figures are available. [81525]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): In 1996–97—the latest year for which figures are available—the proportion of 16-year-olds participating in education was lowest in Salford at 57 per cent. and highest in Kingston-upon-Thames at 97 per cent. Unfortunately, information on school leavers entering higher education is not available by local authority area.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that, in places such as Burnley, the number of school leavers going on to further and, ultimately, higher education is much lower than the national average, and that there are repercussions for towns where there is a lower than average take-up of education at the higher levels. How well does my hon. Friend think that the Government's initiatives to encourage more people throughout the country to go on to further and higher education are working? Does he propose to take any further action to encourage more people to take up those forms of education?

Mr. Mudie: The dual objectives at the centre of the Government's education and training policy are to raise the competitiveness of the British economy through increasing the skills base of the work force, and to end social exclusion. My hon. Friend should take heart and realise that the problems faced by the youngsters in his constituency are a central feature of our objectives. Without taking up too much time, I should like to run through some initiatives.
Learning partnerships are very much at the centre of the battle to improve standards; we are bringing together training and enterprise councils, local government careers services and further education. We are setting local targets and persuading people, by every possible means, to reach the objective of increasing numbers. We are in the second year of the new start scheme, whereby schools, careers services and further education colleges are attempting to bring vocational education into schools for 14 to 17-year-olds. There is retargeting in the careers service so that it can work more closely with individuals who are in danger of falling out of the system. That is working extremely well. We have introduced legislation to ensure that there is a right to time off for study for 16 and 17-year-olds who have not reached an acceptable educational level. Without straining your patience too far, Madam Speaker, briefly, those are some of the things that we are doing.

Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that the percentages relating to school leavers depend on what has been going on in the schools? Is he aware that a local Staffordshire newspaper unequivocally stated, "Our schools betrayed", next to a picture of the Prime Minister? Does that not demonstrate that local newspapers and, indeed, local people are profoundly concerned, in the run-up to the local elections, about the way in which schools have been betrayed by this Government? Is the

Minister aware that the standard spending assessment in Staffordshire is a complete disgrace, and that there is no reasonable comparison between what is going on there and in other counties, such as Hertfordshire?
Is the Minister also aware that there has been a Cabinet decision—in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment were intimately involved—which means that there will be no changes whatever in the SSA for the next three years, and that that is admitted by the Department for Education and Employment? A Cabinet decision has been made for which the Government are responsible—they have betrayed our schools.

Mr. Mudie: It is a delight to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about something that is not Europe-based. I have been a Member of the House for several years and saw how the previous Government operated. The Labour Government are the first Government to approach post-16 education with the understanding that what happens to youngsters at the age of six months relates to where they will be at the age of 16.
We are struggling to deal with the problems of the post-16 age group: there are 5 million people in the community who have no basic skills, and 7 million without accreditation in the work force. Through the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, we have put together an integrated set of policies targeted on improving standards in schools, so that the post-16 problems do not exist because we have dealt with the disease, not the symptoms.

Learning Mentors

Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on his proposals for the use of and access to learning mentors. [81528]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): From September 1999, each secondary school pupil in six inner-city areas will have access to learning mentors. Learning mentors will devote the majority of their time to the children who need extra support to realise their full potential. We shall agree the detailed arrangements for deploying mentors with the relevant local education authorities, in partnership with their schools.

Valerie Davey: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that a voluntary mentoring scheme for those leaving care is proving to be of great value in the Bristol area. Given the importance of that scheme, will all the schools in the six areas be encouraged to take up mentoring schemes?

Ms Morris: I pay tribute to the voluntary mentoring scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. From travelling throughout the country, it is clear to me what a huge impact the voluntary schemes are having. I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the initiative we have launched to employ mentors to support some of the most disadvantaged children and so ensure that they get a decent education will do nothing to detract from the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to mentoring. In fact, one of the duties given to mentors on their


appointment will be to make sure that they co-ordinate with voluntary mentoring and work with schools to raise standards even further.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister knows that, as part of their new deal for employment, the Government have appointed employment advisers who, to a great extent carry out mentoring in respect of education. Is she upset—as all of us should be—that, since the new deal was introduced, in every quarter, the number of unemployed people in the 18 to 24 age group has gone up? Is it not time that the Government carefully examined mentoring in respect of getting people into educational courses? Perhaps people are being ill advised and are not getting jobs at the end of the process.

Ms Morris: I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had benefited from the numeracy hour; if he had, he might have realised that youth unemployment has gone down by a third since the introduction of the new deal. The work we are doing to provide mentors, not only for those who, having left school, are trying to enter employment and training, but for those who are still at school, will ensure that children and adults who are at a point in their life when they have to make key decisions are at last given the high-quality advice and support that they need to ensure that they have access to the life opportunities that have so far been denied to far too many people.

Age Diversity

Ms Linda Perham: When he plans to launch the code of practice on age diversity in employment; and what responses he has had to the draft code. [81529]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): I am pleased to say that the code will be launched next month. Its launch will be a great tribute to my hon. Friend's Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill and to other hon. Members who have also campaigned with such energy on this important issue.
We received 356 responses to the consultation: respondents found the code generally useful, clear and relevant. There were suggestions for improvements which, as far as possible, we are incorporating.

Ms Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I congratulate the Government on their action to launch the code on age diversity in employment. It is one of several measures relating to older people that the Labour Government have taken—far more than the Conservative Government managed. I understand that the code will be monitored and fully evaluated by February 2001. If we are not satisfied with progress by then, will the Government consider legislation on age discrimination, perhaps in the next Parliament?

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the code. I believe that it will make a difference in spreading good practice, in helping to change attitudes and in challenging outdated assumptions. As she says, it will be closely monitored and carefully evaluated. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in a

written answer on 15 December, the impact of the code will be evaluated and that will inform future plans for legislation in that area.

Employment Harmonisation (EU)

Mr. John Wilkinson: When he last discussed with the European Commission the harmonisation of policies to stimulate employment within the EU. [81530]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Ministers have regular discussions with the European Commission and other member states, and we are making good progress through the employment guidelines on active labour market policies to promote employability and to combine flexibility with security. However, that progress is being achieved through co-operation, not harmonisation. Employment policy and employment action plans remain the responsibility of individual member states.

Mr. Wilkinson: Are the Government aware that the harmonisation of value added tax on the importation of works of art from outside the European Union will effectively double the rate of VAT on those works and will gravely damage the London art market? Far from encouraging employment, it will destroy jobs in London and throughout the country. What do the Government intend to do about that? Will they ignore the proposal and just accept it blithely, or make a stand for British jobs and the prosperity of the British people?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government have made vigorous representations in the interests of the British art market. We want to sustain the jobs and the commanding competitiveness that that market enjoys. The employment guidelines to which I referred earlier explicitly include—at the behest of the United Kingdom—the requirement that every regulation be examined to gauge its effect on employment levels. Moreover, we will promote adaptability, flexibility, equal opportunities and entrepreneurship in employment policy. We want to sustain that entrepreneurship in the British art market of which we are so proud.

Mr. Colin Breed: Will co-operation, or the harmonisation or co-ordination of employment policies across Europe, have any effect—good or bad—on the new deal?

Mr. Smith: The employment guidelines promote an active approach to the labour market which guarantees young people who have been out of work for six months the help that they need through an adviser, training programmes and assistance into employment. The good news is that that approach is being extended to other countries. I have received an enormous amount of interest, not just from Europe, but from countries throughout the world, in the achievements of the new deal.
In answer to the accusations that Opposition Members made earlier today, youth unemployment among the eligible group has fallen by more than a third since the new deal was introduced. We have the lowest long-term youth unemployment in this country for 20 years, and we are


proud of the fact that the Labour Government have reduced long-term youth unemployment further in 18 months than the previous Government managed in 18 years.

Education Action Zones

Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the number of bids received for education action zone status in the latest round. [81531]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 123 applications, which come from every region in England.

Mr. Rammell: Does the Minister agree that the key benefit of an education action zone is not just the additional money that it brings— although that is welcome—but the fact that it brings parents, teachers and the public and private sectors together to boost educational achievement? That has been my experience in working with schools in Harlow to produce a bid. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at Harlow's bid, which is unique in involving the local cable television network to increase access to the internet? By linking it to schools, it will engage parents more meaningfully in their children's education.

Ms Morris: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Of course the money allocated to education action zones is welcome but, more importantly, the zones are levers for the sort of partnership that we have not seen in our education service for the past 18 years. When education partners in the community work together, the children in our schools will benefit. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he and his colleagues have done in Harlow. He is correct to say that the bid is unique in using cable

television, but he can imagine the number of requests that I have received from hon. Friends asking me to look carefully at their bids. I assure both him and them that I will do so.

Early Years Education

Ms Julia Drown: What steps have been taken to support early years education and quality child care through pre-schools and playgroups. [81532]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I am delighted to put on record the Government's support for pre-schools in the expansion of early years education and quality child care. Pre-schools and playgroups contribute to good quality early education and child care through local early years development and child care plans. The Government have recently announced up to £500,000 in grants to support good pre-schools and playgroups in temporary financial difficulty, and an independent review to identify any barriers that prevent pre-schools and playgroups from developing their role.

Ms Drown: My constituents welcome the Government's investment in early years education. However, pre-schools and playgroups still have to fund-raise and apply for lottery grants to improve their services. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that the Government's commitment to improving child care and early years provision will continue as long as they are in power?

Ms Hodge: The answer, clearly, is yes. We hope that the pre-school movement will be able to play its part in ensuring that every child in this country gets the best possible start to their educational experience.

Fiona Jones

Madam Speaker: The House may care to know that it is my understanding that the divisional court has decided that following Fiona Jones's successful appeal against her conviction, the Newark seat is not vacant. If further details of the divisional court's decision are received which add significantly to what I have said, of course I will make a further statement at a convenient time.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 MAY—Bank Holiday.
TUESDAY 4 MAY—Until about midnight, progress on remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
THURSDAY 6 MAY—There will be a debate on modernising London's health service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 MAY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MAY—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Tuesday 8 June.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week.
As the NATO action in Yugoslavia may last for some time, will the Leader of the House reflect on how the House may be kept in the picture in the weeks ahead? We have had debates and statements, which we very much welcome, but they have tended to be somewhat random. I do not press the right hon. Lady for an answer now, but the House will want regular opportunities to be kept informed, possibly on a weekly basis.
Will the debates that the right hon. Lady has announced on Northern Ireland give the House an opportunity to be informed on the progress of the talks?
Next week, will the Leader of the House ensure that the disagreement between Ministers as to who is responsible for lifting the beef ban in Wales is resolved? On a point of order yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) drew attention to conflicting statements from two Ministers, one of whom said that


responsibility had been devolved to the Assembly, while the other said that it had not. As the Welsh people go to the polls, can they be clear as to what powers the body that they are voting for may have?
I make no apologies for asking yet again for a debate on Lords reform. I very much hope that the Leader of the House can tell us that it will happen soon.
On 11 May, hon. Members will be tabling questions to Scottish Office Ministers for answer on 25 May. Will the right hon. Lady tell us who will be answering those questions, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that it will not be him?
Finally, while we welcome the dates of the Whitsun recess, will the Leader of the House confirm whether the House will be sitting on the date of the European elections?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about the arrangements for handling reporting back to the House on events in Kosovo. Although I appreciate his recognition that the Government have tried very hard to keep the House informed, he is right that it has been on a somewhat ad hoc basis. As all of us recognise that the NATO action may continue for some time, there is much merit in considering how we might keep the House updated and properly informed. That seems to me to be exactly the type of matter that requires careful consideration through the usual channels, and I shall be happy to take that forward and try to reach agreement on how we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the talks being raised in the context of the Northern Ireland debates. I recognise that that is a serious point, and that people may well wish to allude to that subject. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is a matter as much for Madam Speaker and for the Chair as for me. These subjects may well come up in the debate, but the legislation is a grave and serious matter, to which the House will wish to give proper and full attention.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to provide time for a discussion on a contradiction that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) thought he had identified. I fear that I must disappoint him. Not only can I not find time for such a discussion, but it is totally unnecessary. The hon. Member for Woodspring seems to have overlooked the fact that when my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn gave the initial answer, in a debate in June 1998, policy discussions on the handling of functions covered by the Food Safety Act 1990 were still under way, and those matters had not been decided. Since then, naturally, they have been decided. It is a matter for which responsibility is transferred, so the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was therefore entirely correct.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on Lords reform. We are conscious of the wish to hold a debate on the White Paper. We are seeking a suitable date, which I hope will be before the Whitsun recess, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, for reasons that we mentioned earlier in relation to Kosovo and so on, I cannot make any promises.
With regard to Scottish questions, the appropriate Minister will answer, quite naturally.
I can confirm that the House will be sitting on 10 June. I understand that that is not unusual. The House has always sat on the date of European elections, with the one

exception of the most recent European elections in June 1994, when the previous Government, at what they must have hoped would turn out to be the nadir of their popularity, hoped to avoid further parliamentary scrutiny and embarrassment by ensuring that the House did not sit.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there not merit in the Government tabling a substantive motion on the Kosovo situation—a motion which some of us might well wish to use to challenge the whole basis of the current on-going strategy, which is leading to a Vietnam-like situation? In particular, will there be a statement on why there has been a change of policy on the substantive bombing of Montenegro, a question of which I have given my right hon. Friend notice? How can we do this to Mr. Djukanovic, who has been a friend of the west, and what is the likely effect of bombing Montenegro in relation to any development of Yugoslavia in a peaceful situation?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the Government's view on the issue of a substantive motion on those matters has not changed. As the point has been raised several times in the House, I have looked more carefully into the background, and I understand that a combination of the exercise of the royal prerogative and of the approach that has been taken that this is partly a common law matter, has led successive Governments, literally through the generations, to take the view that these matters are not decided by a substantive motion in the House. At present, the Government do not intend to change that policy.
My hon. Friend asked me—and I am grateful to him for giving me notice—to clarify the reasons for what he described as a change of policy on Montenegro. There has not been a change of policy. The Government support the elected Government of President Djukanovic, but, as I hope and expect the Montenegrin Government recognise, there are facilities in Montenegro that are of value to the Serb military machine, and NATO has sought to undermine those facilities.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I urge the Leader of the House to arrange an early statement on the urgent issue of the new trade war that seems to be about to break out on the issue of the import of hormone-treated beef to the European Union and the United Kingdom? It seems that the EU is being rather more effective in defending the interests and health of consumers in this country—and, indeed, British farmers—than the Government. An urgent statement is certainly necessary as this is a matter of considerable concern. The overnight news is that the situation is deteriorating fast.
The Leader of the House has previously said that she intends to arrange for a debate in the House on charging for entry to this building. The Administration Committee report is being published this week, so will the Commission be examining this matter and making a recommendation to the House before that debate takes place? Can the debate take place before the Whitsun recess?
In particular, will the right hon. Lady undertake that the Commission will look hard at the economics of the proposal? It seems to many Members, on both sides of the House, that those economics will stack up only if there is charging not for two months in the summer, but through 12 months—but that would amount to a creeping


privatisation of the way in which visits to the House take place and considerable charges would inevitably be incurred by our constituents if the proposal were carried through. The House staff would be excluded from taking people round the building and considerable security issues would arise. Can we be reassured that the Commission will look hard at what looks like the thin end of a damaging wedge?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear any overnight reports of a change in the situation on hormone-treated beef, but it is ludicrous to suggest that the EU has been more effective in defending consumers' interests than the Government, who certainly give the highest possible priority to those interests. I should be sorry to learn of anything that is contributing to a new trade war, because we certainly want good trade relations between the EU and the United States, but these things bubble to the surface from time to time and have to be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman asked about charging for entry to this place. He is right that the report has been published and it is anticipated that the Commission will consider the matter. We have not yet considered it, so I cannot tell him whether the Commission will make a recommendation; it may not. On the only occasion on which the matter was discussed by the Commission, all members took the view that this is very much a matter for the House. The economics are clearly the kind of thing that the House would want to take into account.
I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate before the Whitsun recess, but I can certainly say that it is my understanding that the impact of such issues as security—which he mentioned and which would of course be discussed—on the further opening up of the House has led to the proposal to consider charging. Let us not forget that this proposal concerns providing greater access, not less.
It has never been intended that Members would be charged. for taking parties of constituents around the House. I am not a member of the Administration Committee, and am in no way privy to its discussions or bound by its decisions, but, in fairness, it is only right for me to say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that precisely for those reasons, and not because the Committee is in any way advocating creeping privatisation, that the Committee has put these proposals to the House. The House may or may not decide to concur with the Committee's recommendation, but we must respect the seriousness of the concerns that it has identified.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the BBC's special "Panorama" programme on the atrocities in Kosovo to be shown in the House—in particular, to critics of what is happening?
May I also raise a domestic matter? Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the public financing of essential services? Such a debate would give Members, especially Conservative Members, an opportunity to express their views. That would be better than all the hole-in-corner discussions in the Corridors, the rumours, the leaks, the sackings—and, of course, the undermining

of the position of the Leader of the Opposition. A debate would allow us to air the differences in a proper way, in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion. I understand his wish for the "Panorama" programme to be readily available to Members, and I think that he will find that it and other programmes are available through the Library. I hope that hon. Members will take advantage of that service. As for my hon. Friend's proposal for a debate on the public financing of essential services, I think that such a debate would be very interesting, although most of us would hardly need to attend; the Conservative party could hold the debate on its own. As we are offering Conservative Members opposition time, they may wish to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Is the Leader of the House aware of the conflict, in the week including 10 May, between discussion of all stages of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill and a visit to the United States by 11 members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which was arranged several months ago? That coincidence will give rise to a considerable conflict of loyalties among Committee members representing both Northern Ireland constituencies and constituencies in Great Britain. It would be very unfortunate if we could not take a balanced Committee to America.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, and also for the terms and the tone in which he did so. I was not aware of the conflict, but I agree that it is most unfortunate. Obviously, I cannot deal with the matter now, but the business that I announced for the second week is, of course, provisional. I am well aware of the concerns that led to the wish for a debate on the Bill to take place as soon as possible, and as concurrently as possible with what the Irish Government are doing; but I agree that the clash of events is very unfortunate. All I can suggest is that we try to encourage discussions between all involved as a matter of urgency, to establish whether the matter can be resolved in any way.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to NATO's new strategic concepts, which foreshadow considerable commitments of one kind or another. They may raise issues relating to the amendment of the NATO treaty, as well as defence and budgetary issues. May we have a debate as soon as possible, so that Members' views on a matter of profound significance for the future can be heard?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and worthwhile point. I cannot promise to find time for a special debate focusing solely on that issue, but I can tell him that we are very mindful of the fact that we are committed to arranging three defence debates each year. As he will know, we now have a new structure for those debates. One matter that we have not yet debated is the overall issue of defence in the world. We hope to find


time for that debate in the not too distant future, and when it comes along the issue raised by my hon. Friend will be very pertinent.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House may know that the people of Omagh, who have suffered from bombing, are keen to open their town and their community to Kosovar refugees in sympathy, but that is on a long finger. Could that be explained, and, at the same time, could the Home Secretary come to the House to tell us whether any attempts have been made to deal with what some of us consider to be an anomaly in the new legislation dealing with European elections? Under that legislation, a person could spend £5,000 to influence the election of a candidate—or, indeed, an objection to that candidate —without any sort of regulation. I feel that we are getting into a dangerous position with our own electoral laws.

Mrs. Beckett: All of us recognise and honour the generosity of the people of Omagh in their willingness to welcome Kosovo refugees. The Government's approach has been to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the people who are the highest priority cases in needing, for some particular reason, to come to the United Kingdom and who wish to come here. One piece of information that has continually been reinforced by all who talk to the refugees is that by far the majority of them want to return to their homes as soon as possible and to stay in the vicinity of Kosovo. The families of many of them are divided and they are anxious about relatives. I am sure that there is no wish to reject the generosity and good will of the people of Omagh, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I am not familiar with the anomaly to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his second point. I shall also draw those remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Last Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a substantial statement on his visit to Washington for the NATO summit, and I understand that most of the questioning turned on the issue of Kosovo. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House make time for a serious debate on the future of NATO, and in particular the changes in the NATO structure that were agreed at Washington and the possible changes in the NATO treaty? Notwithstanding what she said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), would this matter be covered by the royal prerogative or would there be a substantive vote on the Floor of the House on any changes in the NATO treaty? Clearly, they would have long-term implications for British foreign policy and our relationships with the United Nations

Mrs. Beckett: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), we are committed to a number of defence debates, which may provide an opportunity to raise these issues. We have Defence questions on 10 May if my hon. Friend wants to probe Government—from what he said, he does—on the immediate aftermath of the NATO summit.
On my hon. Friend's further question about whether this decision has to be on a substantive motion or can be done by royal prerogative, my inclination is that it is the

second of the two, but I have not had the chance to give much thought to the matter. If I come to a different conclusion, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can we have an urgent debate to inform and, I hope, reassure the people of this country about the continuity of public services over the millennium period? The Leader of the House may be aware that there is speculation and anxiety about the fact that some people and some trade unions in the public services are making disturbing threatening noises about the unavailability of key public services, not least health, over the millennium period. Is she aware of that, and does she accept that it is of the greatest urgency that this matter is debated in the House, in the hope of getting an absolute guarantee from the Government that there is no question but that public services will be continued over the millennium period?

Mrs. Beckett: It is unlikely that we can find time for a special debate on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is anxiety, but it is a bit late now for there to be anxiety about the delivery of services when planning for the continuous delivery of services without interruption should have started at least five years ago, if not more. I am not making a party political point—although I will if the right hon. Gentleman starts to press me. I am merely making the point that everyone who deals with the issue now recognises that to be the case. The more closely the matter is studied, the more apparent it becomes that the ramifications are far greater than people first anticipated when they began to plan for the millennium.
As for the speculation, I am aware of pressure within some of the services. The heads of services have responsibility for ensuring that they are delivered sensibly and without interruption. Everyone is working hard to achieve that, and there has been proper contingency planning should some unforeseen events take place, which is likely to happen over such an unusually long holiday. As for me giving an absolute guarantee, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members frequently quote reports from the organisation that advised the Conservative Government, TaskForce 2000, and its most recent report is riddled with what are to my mind helpful references to the fact that no one can give absolute guarantees about anything, and that only someone very unwise would ask them to do so.

Mr. Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that today is "take your daughters to work" day. Will she join with me in congratulating the tens of thousands of young girls who are taking the opportunity to go with their mothers and fathers to workplaces throughout the country, including the House of Commons, to see the work that their parents do? Will she also arrange for an early debate on the matter, so that we may discuss how not only girls but boys might gain more work experience and a better understanding of the world of work? It is important for the future that all our young people should have a better understanding of that world.

Mrs. Beckett: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming this day, and in congratulating those who are participating in it, particularly those who, like his own


daughter, are participating in it in the House. I cannot promise him an early debate on the matter, but I can certainly wholeheartedly endorse—as the whole House will—his view that there is much that is worthwhile in young people having work experience, so that they may begin to see what it is that—we hope—their parents find interesting and attractive in their work, besides the salary that they draw at the end of the month.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the number of times that we have been able to discuss Kosovo. Although I wholly endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, it is worth acknowledging that we have had plenty of opportunities for such debate. However, we have not yet had an opportunity to debate the very real difficulties—which will be enormous and complex, and have to be discussed in the House—of how, when Milosevic has accepted the inevitable, we go about reconstructing Kosovo, with all the attendant disastrous consequences that we shall have to deal with then. Will she try to find time for what would be a very important debate, bearing in mind that it concerns not only the Foreign Office, but almost every Department of State?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the time that the Government have found for such debate. I share —as I am sure that the whole House will—his recognition both of the importance of reconstruction in Kosovo and of the fact that the matter requires most careful consideration. Although I cannot promise him now that I shall find time for a special debate, I assure him that, when discussions are held on how the House should continue to be informed and to debate those matters, we shall consider exactly those types of issue. I am grateful to him for reminding us of that.

Angela Smith: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 558, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)?
[That this House deplores the action of Pizza Hut, which, in its opposition to the national minimum wage, has cut funds for late night taxi services for its staff, many of whom are under 18 years and some of whom work as late as 1.00 am; considers such action prejudicial to the welfare and safety of Pizza Hut staff; and urges the company to reconsider its position.]
Many hon. Members think that withdrawing that benefit demonstrates a callous disregard for loyal staff who work late at night, and that it is certainly against the spirit of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, so that we may discuss not only employers who are working against the national minimum wage and treating their staff in that manner, but employers who have welcomed the national minimum wage and a re ensuring that it succeeds?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I do not feel that, at the Dispatch Box, I can be drawn into the affairs of a specific company, I understand the anxiety that my hon. Friend expresses. It is not the first time, and I suspect that it will not be the last, that employers have prayed in aid the existence—or even

the possibility of—the minimum wage as an excuse for doing something that they chose to do for reasons of their own. That may well apply in this case.
It is a matter of contract law, rather than the handling of the minimum wage itself. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will know—I am happy to remind people—that there is a national minimum wage helpline for those who believe that they are being unfairly disadvantaged. There is also a local office of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that employees may contact, and I hope that they are doing so.

Mr. John Hayes: Given the rather disturbing answer that the Leader of the House gave earlier to the shadow Leader of the House, on the rights of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban, will she arrange for an urgent statement on the issue? Hon. Members will realise that it is entirely feasible that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly might lift the ban, whereas the House of Commons does not, thereby putting English farmers at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, Scots Members of this House could vote against lifting the ban in England, which would cause concern and distress to farmers across the whole of this nation. An urgent statement is therefore required to reassure them that a Government whom they already feel are badly letting them down will not let them down even further.

Mrs. Beckett: I know nothing disturbing about those arrangements, and those to whom they come as a surprise cannot have been awake while we were debating the Welsh and Scottish devolution Bills. I am happy to say that it is not my problem. Moreover, the idea that English farmers will be at a disadvantage assumes that they are incapable of selling into Wales and Scotland, which I would have thought was a slur that they would not be happy to hear.
It is clear that, as the Government have said repeatedly, any decision made on the matter must be on the basis of scientific advice. That has always been, and will continue to be, the Government's stance, and we all hope that the scientific advice will soon give us clarity.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on the economy, especially as under Labour we have the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years, inflation is under control and £40 billion is being spent on education and the health service? Will she consider a debate specifically about that £40 billion, because in discussing the Finance Bill this week, the shadow Chancellor said that his party supports our investment of £40 billion in health and education—but if we read the papers or listen to the news, we realise that there is a split in the Conservative party on that subject, and that such statements seem to cause problems? Should we not consider the matter? Is it not true that the Tories cannot be trusted on our public services?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion, but I fear I cannot help him with his proposal for a special debate. As he will be aware, we have debated the Finance Bill this week but, inexplicably, the Opposition chose to ignore the facts to which he has drawn attention—the low mortgage rate, low inflation and


the substantial investment in our public services. I understand his wish to remedy the defects in the Conservatives' choice of issues to debate, but I fear that I cannot find extra time.
As for whether the Opposition now support the investment in our public services, over the past few weeks I have heard the shadow Chancellor and others in the Conservative party saying sometimes that it was wild extravagance and sometimes that they supported it—and also that perhaps they did not support a change of direction. The Conservative party's position is far from clear, but I do not think that a debate would help us, because the party seems to have a split personality on the subject.

Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a short statement on the worrying incident that occurred at Stansted airport, in which a package of highly dangerous iridium weighing 200 lb was discovered lying there, having been "lost in the post"? Had it been opened, it could have killed thousands of people. If she makes a statement, will she be able to explain why the package, having been lost between the United States of America and Mexico and having ended up at Stansted, lay undiscovered for 10 days; what steps the Government are taking to investigate the matter, whether the package was carried on a passenger airliner, and what the Government are doing to reduce the movement of radioactive material in general?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that the material was discovered "lying there". My understanding is that it was "lying" in a safe radioactive storage area, which is not quite the same thing. It was not exactly on a baggage trolley. Of course, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern about such material being untraced, but I cannot offer him an early statement on the subject.
This morning, I had the advantage of hearing part of the hon. Gentleman's interview on the radio, in which he called for a reduction in the movement of radioactive materials. Of course I understand his fears—public safety is a high priority for the Government—but if one were waiting to be treated with radioactive isotopes, or were concerned about the safety of something that was being investigated using radioactive trace techniques, one might be less sympathetic to the notion that such material should not be transported anywhere.

Maria Eagle: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate—next week, I hope—on that part of the £21 billion that the Government are spending on the national health service that will restore free eye tests for pensioners from this month? The Conservatives abolished those during their reign, and it would seem appropriate for both sides of the House to have the opportunity to accept that that was wrong, while alerting many of our constituents, including almost 19,000 people in my constituency, to the fact that they can now go down to their optician and have a free eye test.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right, and I regret that I cannot promise time for such a debate, especially as it is important—as she rightly says—that pensioners understand that their right to free eye tests has been reinstated. There was much concern in the House at the time of abolition, even in the Conservative party, about

the health consequences of that move. It has been damaging, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have reversed it.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the plight of those people on low incomes who have worked hard all their lives and are approaching retirement? They have been considerably disadvantaged by this Government's changes to the tax structure, including the abolition of MIRAS and the married couples allowance, the increase in national insurance for the self-employed and the rise in the cost of living caused by increases in petrol duty. Such people have worked hard all their lives on low incomes and may have saved a little, but they have no time left to build up their pensions. They can expect to retire on a lower pension not only because they have earned less in the past few years, but because of the tax changes to pensions.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot offer a further debate on the matter other than the ones we have already had on the Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the wrong person. I shadowed social security for five years, during which time the Government whom he was proud to support did more than any Government in living memory to devastate the pension provision, the safety net and all the services that underpin support for pensioners, especially those on low incomes.

Sir George Young: Come on!

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying "Come on". Business questions do not exist solely for the Opposition to have a go at the Government: the Government can have a go back.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If everything has gone to plan, a plane containing refugees from Kosovo recently landed at East Midlands airport. The refugees will be taken to Leicestershire and to a part of north-east Derbyshire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —who will, I understand, soon be back with us and will be a solid representative of the refugees' needs. Can we have a debate specifically about the problems of refugees from Kosovo, both those who are in the countries around Kosovo and those who have been transferred to other areas? People have different views on how the refugee situation should be handled and what facilities should be available. It would be valuable if the House had a debate on the needs of the refugees, rather than another debate on the NATO bombing and the background to the situation.

Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concerns. Like him, I have heard the reports that some of the refugees will go to north-east Derbyshire. I cannot promise to find time in the near future for a specific debate on the issue of refugees, but I can assure him that the Government keep those concerns under review and will continue to discuss them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a statement on 21 March on the issue and we will continue to keep the House informed.

I share my hon. Friend's view that the matter will be kept under review by the powerful and beady eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Chamber is not the same without him and I am sure that all hon. Members wish him a speedy return.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Home Secretary on the work of the Passport Agency? My constituents face delays of weeks and months in the return of their passports when they have made new passport applications. That serious situation especially affects families who now have to get passports for their children. I understand that since 25 March all passport applications have been diverted to Belfast because of the overload of the mainland system. Will she bring the Home Secretary to the House to explain the work of the agency and the measures that will be taken to rectify the problems?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that the whole House—and certainly all hon. Members whose constituencies include a substantial population from the ethnic minority communities—will be aware of how great are the difficulties being experienced by the Passport Agency and of their serious effect on the service available to people. I am not promising to bring my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the House in the near future to give an explanation, partly because it is a problem—a difficult and thorny one—which we inherited and are trying to resolve.
However, it is typical of IT problems that no one is willing to predict accurately when they will be sorted out. All I can say is that an enormous amount of work is being undertaken to try and resolve the matter. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to hon. Members—or will do so in the near future—to give them as much information as he can. As things stand, we can only do what we can to alleviate the worst of the difficulties and hope that proper service is resumed soon.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If it turns out that my right hon. Friend has been unsuccessful in persuading the Opposition to hold a debate on public services, will she reconsider the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the speculation last weekend that Michael Portillo, the former Member for Enfield, Southgate, may seek the Conservative nomination in my constituency of Harrow, West at the next election. Will she seek an assurance, through the usual channels, that Mr. Portillo's campaign for that nomination will not be blocked by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mrs. Beckett: I had seen some of those reports, and I think that many Conservative Members—not just the present Leader of the Opposition but the contenders for that post as well—will be both interested and alarmed to learn of the plans of the former Member for Enfield, Southgate to seek a return to the House. However, I fear that, even with the enticing prospect that we might further expose the divisions in the Conservative party, I still cannot find time for a debate.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement to be made early

next week by the Minister for Sport, so that he can explain his remark about underachievers in the Scottish football team? He said that the team was the West Ham of world football and urged it to throw in its lot with the England team so that a United Kingdom side could take the field. If possible, can we have such a statement before Thursday?

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. I fear that it is unlikely that I can arrange for a statement to be made before Thursday, but I rather suspect, for good or ill, that if the hon. Gentleman were to press my hon. Friend on the matter he may find my hon. Friend only too willing to explain his views.

Mr. Phil Hope: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the new campaign on agency workers launched this week by the Trades Union Congress? The campaign has the support of two reputable employment agencies, Manpower and Adecco, which are keen to promote the existing legal rights against rogue agencies and the new rights being introduced by the Employment Relations Bill. A telephone hotline is to be made available so that people can find out what their rights are, and a debate would give the House an opportunity to consider the merits of a European directive on establishing employment status and rights for all temporary workers in the European Union.

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that the TUC's aim of improving standards in the industry is to be welcomed, and I very much welcome the campaign. There is much talk about the flexible labour market in this country, and it can be of advantage to both employers and employees, but decent standards must be observed. Good employers who try to do a sensible job and supply the needs of the employment market are let down if standards are undermined by rogue agencies. I hope that all hon. Members will support the campaign, which I hope will be successful. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the matter soon.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Apparently well-founded reports suggest that nursery schools and pre-school playgroups have been closing at a rate of two or three a week. The matter was raised at Education and Employment questions this morning, but the Under-Secretary of State dodged it. The question also came up in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and the Prime Minister flatly denied that the closures were taking place. Will the Leader of the House therefore find time for a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, so that we can get to the bottom of the matter and find out the truth about the harm being done to nursery education by the Government's policies?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said this morning, but I did hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, and I fear that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) must have misheard him. The Prime Minister said that the Government were making further investment in nursery education and that such facilities were being made more widely available.
The position clearly varies in different parts of the country, but I suspect that part of the reason for the concerns aired by some Conservative Members is that as


the Government have put substantial investment into providing additional nursery places through public funds, that investment may be reducing the need for some privately provided places.
Obviously, there are differences in provision, but that does not necessarily mean that there is less provision, and it certainly does not necessarily mean that provision is of a less high standard. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment were quite right to contradict any Conservative Member who said that nursery provision was declining under the Government. It is increasing; what is changing is how it is provided.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Leader of the House organise an early debate on the single currency? I ask that for the particular benefit of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, on Radio 4's "Today" programme yesterday, was diverted from his normal tirade against Europe into a discussion of splits in the Conservative party. Interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman seemed three times to refuse to back the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel, therefore, that he—and both wings of the Conservative party—should be given the opportunity to debate the euro and explain why the Tories have dogmatically ruled out British membership for 10 years, regardless of the economic circumstances or potential benefits for the British people.

Mrs. Beckett: I also heard a large part of the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I was deeply irritated that the interviewer, uncharacteristically, did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman with what seemed to me to be the pertinent question. What struck me forcefully was not only that the right hon. Gentleman took his usual negative attitude to the euro, but that he spent his entire time saying that the fact that the euro had gone down in value was a very bad thing that would cost jobs and cause great difficulties in economies that have joined the euro. He said that it was, therefore, a jolly good thing that we were not in it. As that was the very opposite of all that he had said about the value of the pound since the general election, I could not understand why he was not questioned on that point by the interviewer.
No matter how inconsistent the right hon. Gentleman may be about his attitude to the euro and the pound, however, there is one matter on which he is entirely consistent—his attitude to whoever happens to be leading his party.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Recently, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a review of meat inspection charges. A deluge of expensive regulation is sweeping away numerous small abattoirs and food businesses. If the review is to have integrity and win the respect of the industry, it is essential that it should be conducted by someone outside the Ministry who is truly independent. May we have a statement from the Minister on the grounds of the review, its timetable and who will lead it? If we do not have such a statement, the review will be seen to be an internal cover-up by the Ministry.

Mrs. Beckett: As my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the review during a debate in the House only

last week, it cannot be called a cover-up. The details of how it will be handled are being considered. The Government think it right and necessary to hold a review into a regime that was largely introduced at the behest and under the supervision of the Conservative Government. The review will be thorough and carried out well. If the hon. Gentleman wants more details about specific matters, I suggest that he tables a few parliamentary questions.

Mr. John Healey: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the schools repair programme? Is she aware that Labour has committed £5.4 billion to the programme, which is twice the amount that the Tories would have spent? Some 10,000 schools in England have already benefited, including Wath comprehensive, Swinton comprehensive and Wickersley comprehensive in my constituency, which received a total of about £150,000 for long-overdue repairs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should remind the House that while the Government are tackling problems that matter to people, factions in the Opposition are spending their time tackling each other with increasing ferocity?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right about both the value and importance of the school repair programme and how much more important that is than the divisions in the Conservative party. He also reminds his local electorate— where the schools have benefited from this programme—and others of how important it is to give this Government the opportunity to continue to deliver on the promises that we made at the general election on the fundamental services that are of prime importance to the British people. I hope that message will be understood in his area and across the country.

Mr. John Bercow: Given the detailed newspaper reports about allegations that the Labour party in Sheffield and Hackney is engaged in a concerted campaign to persuade and browbeat frail and elderly people to apply for a proxy vote—including, the House should know, through the use of the publicly available register at local town halls, with a view to persuading people who have permanent postal votes instead to opt for a proxy vote—will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement upon this important matter? Does she accept that that would provide the Home Secretary with an opportunity to make it clear that he and the Government absolutely deprecate any such conduct in the run-up to the local elections and any others, that any such allegations will be thoroughly investigated by the Labour party nationally, and that any constituency Labour party found guilty of such malpractice will be immediately suspended or disbanded?

Mrs. Beckett: I have heard no report of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think that he should be cautious in his language. There is no malpractice in encouraging people to take out a postal or proxy vote for their convenience. In many circumstances it can be sensible. As for the notion that in some way this is being misused, I have heard no reports of it whatever. I have not the faintest idea whether they have any reliability or are a wild figment of the imagination of some Conservative party supporter. In the only case of proven electoral fraud that I can recall in recent years, it was the Conservative party that was at fault.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Agriculture Select


Committee this week published its report into badgers and bovine tuberculosis. As a result the Committee has largely backed Professor Krebs' report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with some reservations. Those reservations are shared by the all-party animal welfare group, which I chair. We are concerned that in some parts of the country badgers will be obliterated with perhaps no good reason, and that in others badgers will be untouched for perhaps up to seven years, leaving farmers with the difficulty of dealing with bovine TB if it affects their herd and the cold comfort that the Government might see what they can do in five to seven years' time. That is of great concern to hon. Members who are interested in both the rural economy and animal welfare. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a Minister from MAFF to come to the House to make a statement and hear hon. Members' views?

Mrs. Beckett: The Government have welcomed the Select Committee report. I understand that it is a careful and considered report, and we shall look carefully at its recommendations. We also take seriously the concerns of the all-party animal welfare group. It is difficult to balance the interests of badgers and those of cows, which are, of course, also animals. The Government have been looking at the matter carefully. I share the Select Committee's view that the matter should be handled with a policy approach which is science based. I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early statement on the matter, but I can certainly undertake that the Government will give the Select Committee report the full consideration that it deserves.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). When she has these discussions on a possible change of business for the week after next, will she consider whether it might be a good idea, subject to agreement through the usual channels, to have the debate on the House of Lords reform White Paper that week, because it is long outstanding? It would be entirely convenient to debate that, whereas it would be inconvenient to have the debate that my right hon. Friend questioned.

Mrs. Beckett: I undertook to facilitate serious discussions about the business that was originally scheduled. I do not know what their outcome will be. It may be that the consensus is that it is right to continue with the business originally scheduled. We will have to consider that. As to what might replace it if the original business does not continue, this morning has shown that there is a plethora of interesting and engaging subjects, all of which will no doubt claim some part of the Government's attention.

Opposition Day

10TH ALLOTTED DAY

Housing and the Green Belt

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the Government's record on allowing building in the Green Belt and development of greenfield sites and their failure to meet even their own targets for new building on brownfield sites; condemns their refusal to increase their 60 per cent brownfield site building target in line with their recently revised household projection figures; and deplores the Government's failure to protect the countryside.
It is a little over two months since our last debate on the Government's lackadaisical approach to protecting the countryside and their penchant for concreting over vast tracts of green belt and green-field land, with areas such as Stevenage, West Sussex, Sutton Coldfield and Newcastle as monuments to their anarchic approach to protecting our countryside and the green belt. Since then, there have been two significant Government announcements. First, there was the long awaited and long-overdue publication of the draft revised PPG3—planning policy guidance—on housing. Secondly, there were the revised housing projections, which showed a reduction from 4.4 million houses to 3.8 million.
In the light of those announcements and, given that some green-field development will be carried out, we must ask how it can be minimised and brown-field site development maximised. Will the Government's preferred approach enable us to do that sustainably and rationally, rather than by pursuing the field-by-field, trench warfare approach so characteristic of their efforts so far? Can the process be improved so that it becomes an opportunity rather than a threat?
Both in government and in opposition, we have maintained that as much building as feasible should be on brown-field sites. That is why we originally set the 60 per cent. target. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised it to 66 per cent. early last year. I am delighted that the Government have come some way towards our way of thinking and have accepted a 60 per cent. target, even if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who I understand is to reply to the debate, regards the Government's policy as a recipe for disaster. It would be helpful if he would give greater details on how they will seek to achieve the target.
The latest available figures show that building on brown-field sites is lagging behind the target, at 53 per cent. PPG3 is supposed to be the blueprint for ensuring that the target is met, but will it have that effect? While we have waited for the guidance, and its long overdue publication, major green-belt developments have been given the green light in places such as West Sussex, Hertfordshire and the west midlands. If new housing continues to be built on green-field sites at the current rate, an area the size of Suffolk will disappear under concrete by the time today's school leavers reach retirement.


It is worth noting that, in Cambridge city council, both Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors voted for a major review of the green belt to be in the East Anglia regional plan. As the House knows, that means that several thousand houses will be built in south and east Cambridge on green-belt land if the changes take place. That would destroy the purpose of the Cambridge green belt, which is to preserve the unique setting of an historic city. PPG3 talks of extensions to urban areas, which we believe is in some ways misplaced, because it threatens the green belt in the example that I gave. I should be grateful if Ministers, instead of chattering among themselves, would give some thought to how, if the policy in Cambridgeshire goes ahead, the Government will fulfil the purpose of the green belt and protect the historic city of Cambridge.
In PPG3, the Government talk about urban extensions, but will such extensions not put an unbearable strain on existing infrastructures? We are told that we are to have a sequential approach to the choice of sites, with brown-field sites considered first. Will that slow the planning and development process yet further? Will the Government end up falling even further behind their own targets?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): This is pathetic.

Mr. Burns: It is rather pathetic that all that the Minister can do is sit there and try to disturb my speech because he simply does not like having pointed out the inadequacies of his Government on this matter in the past two years.
As the Minister will know, a recent study published by the Civic Trust and the House-Builders Federation focused on 54 potential brown-field sites identified for building purposes as long ago as 1986. The study revealed that only 39 sites—72 per cent. of that land—had been developed at all in the intervening years and that only between 29 and 54 per cent. of the land had been developed for housing on all or part of a site. The report listed such constraints as contamination, problems of land assembly and what the authors called
a lack of flexibility, creativity, technical and market knowledge in some local authorities.
If the possibility of developing a brown-field site is to be considered for years, but is ultimately to be discarded, the sequential approach could significantly slow up development.
While we are on the question of contamination, may I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, as I am sure the Minister accepts, this problem needs to be addressed urgently? Last summer, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report highlighted the issue. It said:
We would be appalled if the necessary Regulations on land contamination has not been laid within 10 days of the House returning from the Summer Recess.
That was the summer recess of 1998, to be of help to the Minister. That was six months ago and no orders have yet been laid.
On 22 July last year, the Minister for the Environment said that the Government would bring the legislation into force in July 1999. Since then, there has been significant

slippage. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), told me in a written answer on Tuesday that he hoped that the regulations would be laid in July this year and that they "should"—that was the word that he used, interestingly—be in force on 1 December.
The slippage and the pedestrian attitude that has highlighted the Government's general approach suggest that there is no sense of urgency. The Government seem to be oblivious to the fact that local government, the industry and environmental interests all eagerly await the regulations. The sooner they are in force, the sooner the clean-up and development of brown-field sites can go ahead. [Interruption.] I hope that Ministers, instead of asininely sitting on the Treasury Bench, saying, "Hear, hear," will pull their fingers out and do something so that we do not have the slippage that the Select Committee so hoped almost a year ago would not happen.
Barely do we have the revised draft PPG3 than the Secretary of State publishes his revised household projection figures. The previous figure of 4.4 million houses—on which all planners had been working—has been reduced to 3.8 million. At a stroke, the Government's targets for overall development, as well as for green-field sites, seem—superficially—to be more attainable. There will be less new development, presumably including that on green-field sites—or is that too good to be true? That remains to be seen, but the Opposition will certainly carefully study those figures and the assumptions that underlie them—when we know exactly what those assumptions are.

Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is odd that the figures have been revised without the workings being published? Has my hon. Friend noticed that a former professional adviser to the former Department of the Environment has said publicly that he cannot believe that those figures are correct and that he is unable to judge them because the workings have not been provided? We shall have to wait until this autumn to find out how the Government arrived at that conclusion. It would be nice if we could be given that conclusion, but is it not odd—indeed, even suspicious—to publish a new figure without explaining how it has been reached?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Given the fact that the Government pay so much lip service to open government, one would have assumed that, when publishing sets of figures that would have such an important impact throughout the country, they would publish the assumptions and workings behind them. It is quite extraordinary that they have not; sadly, it is typical of the contempt in which the Government hold the House and the way in which it carries out its business that they are prepared to publish a result without the workings that elaborate on it.

Mr. Gummer: If that is the case, perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to Ministers that, if they could manage a commitment of 60 per cent., or 4.4 million, of houses on brown-field sites, and, even if we are now to assume


that the number is 3.8 million, they might agree—roughly speaking—to my hope, while I was Secretary of State for the Environment, of 75 per cent.

Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that I shall deal with his intervention later.
At present, however, hon. Members in the Chamber are in a fortunate position, because the purpose of the debate is to hold the Government to account for their failings in a matter that has such a great impact on communities throughout the country. My right hon. Friend raised a most important point in relation to the publication of the new projected housing figures without any of the background work to support them. We are fortunate in that two Ministers are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps at least one of those Ministers would like to deal with the extremely valid point made by my right hon. Friend. Ministers could intervene now or, if they have to bide time by seeking the advice of their civil servants, we shall await their comments in either their opening or their closing speeches.
It remains to be seen whether the figures are too good to be true. We shall certainly examine them extremely carefully—as well as the assumptions that underlie them—when all the reasons for the Government's decision are available to us and to the rest of the country. However, we can calculate on the basis of the former figures that, if the Government have got the figures wrong, 600,000 families or individuals will have nowhere to live during the time span of the projected housing figures. [Interruption.] I can reassure the Minister that I fully appreciate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members stopped making casual remarks from sedentary positions—that would be most helpful to the debate.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you appreciate that I am fully aware that the time span has changed with the announcement of the latest figures, if only because the Government made it clear when they published the new figures in their press releases, which they kindly send to me.
We can calculate on the basis of the old figures that, if the Government have got it wrong, 600,000 families or individuals will have nowhere to live. We understand that the projections remain much the same in the south-east, but that there will be sharp falls in other parts of the country. We shall have to await the Secretary of State's contacting the regional planning conferences to outline the details before we know for sure whether our understanding is correct, but that is certainly what is rumoured. Will there really be fewer widows and divorced people in the next 25 years than were previously expected? If so, it would be interesting to know the basis on which the Government reached that conclusion. When will the Secretary of State tell regional planning bodies how the reduced 3.8 million projection will affect their areas?

Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point about a hypothetical

reduction in the number of widows and divorced people. Is the reduction in the figures not attributable, at least in part, to a projected increase in cohabitation? Whereas in the past people would live separately, they now live together openly.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The somewhat sketchy information which has so far been published gives the increase in cohabitation as one of the reasons for the reduced housing projections. It is important that we should have access to the workings that have gone into the figures, because it would be interesting to know the rate of split-up of cohabiting partners. Obviously, some cohabiting partners split up, as do married couples, but we are in the dark as to its impact because we do not know the details of the workings for the figures. Our uncertainty would be eased by being told exactly how the Government carried out their calculations, but I fear that time alone will tell.
The Government's announcement is hedged around with qualifications. It stresses that 3.8 million is not a precise figure; yet, even on the sharply reduced forecast, we shall need 150,000 new households a year, every year, for the next quarter of a century. All in all, the Government's recent announcement raises more questions than it answers, because they did not publish the evidence and the workings when they published the figures. The Government have got matters back to front by making an announcement of that nature and then expecting the country and interested parties to wait six months or so to see the complete picture that would enable them to form an independent view on how accurate and realistic the figures were.
Given that the emphasis on housebuilding will, in many cases, revolve around urbanism, the first objective must be mixed-use development.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): As it appears that quite a lot of disinformation is going around, I should like to point out that the press release on household growth that was published by my Department on 29 March 1999 laid out the regional figures.
We did that, first, because it conformed with the practice of previous Administrations: nobody would question the ability and credibility of staff at the Office for National Statistics and, in one sense, the figures are not Government figures, but a reflection of what the ONS has said.
We did it, secondly, because, starting on 14 May, an important hearing will take place in the south-east—the examination in public of the guidance produced by the South East regional planning conference. The Government thought that it was responsible to ensure that the regional information was available to that hearing; but, as usual, the more detailed district and county information will be published later this year.

Mr. Burns: I fully accept what the Minister says, because we have all seen the press release. My point is that the Government have published figures up to a certain level, which they have not gone beyond. A Minister recently told me in a written answer that the Government could not confirm whether there would be any change in the projected figures for the county of Essex. He said that


we had to wait until the Secretary of State had written to the regional planning bodies. The junior Minister has kindly confirmed that that is absolutely correct. Of course it is, but, to understand the significance and the impact of the figures fully, we must know their effect on specific planning areas in a county. We do not have that information.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister prays in aid the fact that an examination in public is about to take place and the new figures are now available? However, when I asked him about the county structure plan and the EIP that had taken place in Devon but had not yet been finalised, he dismissed my question and said, "It has already taken place, so we cannot take account of new information." The Government seem to have one rule for one part of the country and another for somewhere else.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the situation is nothing short of chaotic. That is totally unacceptable to the House, to local authorities which must do the work and to the public who want to know how the Government's policy will impact on their local communities.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Burns: I will give way once more and then I must make progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend not being far too kind to the Government? They have given a figure, but we know that the Office for National Statistics usually provides a range of figures and that the office must have done the work in order to produce that figure. Why do we not have the details of that work? Either the Government have those details, and will not publish them, or they do not have the details, in which case the figure is meaningless. In one way or another, the Government have got it wrong.

Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is inconceivable that the Government would not be prepared to publish the figures if they had them. It will be fascinating to hear the Minister's explanation. We want to know whether the Government have the figures. If they do have them, why can they not publish them, so that we can examine them now instead of waiting until later this year?

Mr. Caborn: rose—

Mr. Burns: I said that I would take no more interventions; I wish to conclude. The Minister will have the opportunity to speak in about three minutes, when he will be able to provide all the answers that he likes.
The agenda for this building must be determined by scale, certainty, planning for sustainability and the proper use and distribution of planning gain for the benefit of the whole community. We believe also that, logically, if the projected housebuilding figure is to be reduced by about 600,000, it is time for the Government to be bold and to raise their 60 per cent. brown-field site target. The Government now have a golden opportunity to raise that

figure to 66 per cent., as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has done, which would be environmentally friendly and show badly needed common sense.
The Government know full well that some people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), have suggested an even higher figure of 75 per cent. for brown-field site building. I believe that it is time for the Government to re-examine their 60 per cent. commitment and to raise it, given the changed circumstances.
The first two years of this Government's policy on the green belt and on green-field building have been characterised by bullying, destruction of the green belt and a lack of clear direction. The publication of the revised PPG3 and the reduced housing projection figures give the Government the chance to put their mistakes and the damage of the past two years behind them. Now is the time for the Government to think again and come up with a policy that is environmentally friendly and relevant to the country's housing needs, and will not ruin whole swathes of the countryside. I urge the Government to seize that opportunity.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance, and maintaining tight planning controls over the Green Belt and other designated green spaces; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach is helping to achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of new housing on previously-developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid-1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the benefits of replacing the previous 'predict and provide' approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible 'plan, monitor and manage' system; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas.".
I shall begin by addressing the Opposition's charges against the Government—which have been poorly made—as stated in their motion. The Opposition claim that we are allowing large-scale development in the countryside and the green belt. Given the previous Administration's record, their charges are opportunistic, even hypocritical. I remind the House that it was Conservative Members who let the market rip. Clearly, they are trying, in speeches by their Front-Bench Members, to dissociate themselves from that policy. They did nothing to deal with the problems of urban sprawl and the decline of our inner cites.
Under the previous Government, large areas of the green belt were released for development and little effort was made to promote housebuilding on recycled land. Their record reveals that, between 1985 and 1995, only 42 per cent. of new homes were built on recycled land. They knew that their policy was not good enough, but they did not have the bottle to widen people's horizons and take on the "not in my back yard" syndrome.


The previous Government approved development in the green belt in places such as north Kent, Manchester, south Bedfordshire and Woking. Conservative Members deliberately mislead the public on housing development by confusing green-field sites with the green belt.

Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Caborn: No. I shall proceed further with my speech before I let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.
It was, of course, also the previous Administration who embraced the inflexible, top-down, predict-and-provide approach to household growth and denied local people a say in how much new housing should be built and where in their region it should be built.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman quoted four places, but I can, off hand, point out that, in two of them, the developments were not housing: one was Manchester airport, which could hardly be built in the middle of a city; the other was a much-needed opportunity for jobs which the Labour party demanded. Will the right hon. Gentleman please not misinform the House?

Mr. Caborn: I shall not misinform the House. I shall give right hon. and hon. Members the facts and they can, if they want, read the three-page list of places where the Conservatives allowed green-belt development to take place.
What are this Government doing to promote new thinking on planning for housing and urban renewal? We are decentralising decision making and replacing the top-down mentality, with its predict-and-provide approach, with a more flexible system of plan, monitor and manage.
I shall contrast the previous Administration's role with the actions of this Government and past Labour Governments. The post-war Labour Government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, they did, and we are proud of the fact that they established the green belt and the national parks. If we read the history books, we find that Conservative Administrations have done nothing to protect the countryside and the green belt. They did not even challenge the predict-and-provide approach, as we are now doing with our system of plan, monitor and manage, which will be much more effective.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Conservative Members do not need to tell us what their plans for the green belt are, because in certain parts of Britain, those plans are evident. In north Lincolnshire, the area that I represent, the unitary authority that was formed in 1996 now has a Labour administration, which has drafted its first local plan. That would reduce green-field development, protect the green belt and prevent the over-development of villages. The Conservatives in opposition on the council oppose that draft plan and will stand for election next Thursday saying that they will overturn it if they are elected. They would increase development on green-field sites and in villages. A number of their candidates have, in the past, been personal

beneficiaries of that policy, and they want it to be reinstated. That is what the Conservative party does to green-field sites and the green belt.

Mr. Caborn: That speaks for itself. It may be a Labour party political broadcast. Are there some elections in the near future?

Mr. Cawsey: indicated assent.

Mr. Caborn: Yes, there are. Well, I hope that the electorate who will have the opportunity to vote in the local elections have taken note of what my hon. Friend said, which was very telling. Such behaviour obviously follows on from what the previous Administration did when they were in power.
The Government are developing innovatory ideas to regenerate towns and cities—a legacy of that previous Administration—to increase the use of recycled land and improve the quality of life of everyone who lives in urban areas. Our aim is nothing less than to drive an urban renaissance, providing for sustainable growth in both urban and rural areas.
What the Government have grasped, which unfortunately Conservative Members cannot seem to see, is that there is a link between protecting the countryside, the green belt and urban renewal. Everyone agrees about that. Many members of the Conservative party believe that we are approaching these issues in precisely the right way, and our approach has been commended by some Conservative Members from time to time. What is more, there is widespread support for the approach that the present Administration are taking to land use and transport planning. That support comes from the Confederation of British Industry, the house builders, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, to name but a few. I shall quote from the CPRE press release.
The Government's new planning policies begin to put teeth into its commitment to protect the countryside and revitalise the towns.
They should have a significant impact on the geography of new building and help to contain urban sprawl.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Caborn: No.
Therefore, I welcome the debate—the fifth that we have held on the subject in less than two years. I thank the Tories—the official Opposition—for letting us have a free party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party. May we have many more in future? If we can arrange one just before the European elections, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might help to get more Labour votes.
Let me repeat what we have already achieved since the previous debate on the green belt, requested by the Conservative party, in February. Our statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" marked a break with the past and set out our objectives for the urban renaissance that I have mentioned. It signalled a departure from the days of predict and provide, and the previous Administration's laissez-faire policies.
We have set a clear 60 per cent. national target for new housing to be built on recycled land, which was supported by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. We believe that it is realistic and challenging,


and will encourage the regions to go even higher. By contrast, the Conservative party still seems unable to agree on any national target, and bandies figures about—as we heard this afternoon—without any idea of how they will be achieved.
We announced a significant increase in the funds available for urban regeneration and the protection of the countryside. We have launched the new deal for the communities initiative. We have increased the funds available through the single regeneration budget. We have freed up £5 billion of capital receipts for local authorities to use in their housing programmes. We have strengthened PPG6 to make an even firmer declaration of our intention to curb the excesses of out-of-town shopping.
We have devoted real resources to address the economic and social problems in rural areas. To mention one initiative, we have put £170 million into rural bus services. As a result, in many areas, people now have a bus service after years without one.

Mr. James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the CPRE. Will he explain why another non-governmental organisation, Friends of the Earth, described the recent Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report as
a damning indictment of Government plans"?
Why did the Labour-dominated Committee say
The Government's proposals are well-intentioned, but vague
and
not adequate to achieve their aims"?
How does he answer that accusation?

Mr. Caborn: We have answered the Select Committee report; I am a great supporter of Select Committees. I look at these matters historically and I am describing what we have done. The Opposition give me the opportunity to present a monthly report to the House on planning generally and I have set out what we have done, up to the February debate. I shall now tell the House this Administration's achievements since February. I am giving an update, and I have no doubt that the Select Committee will consider those issues. Friends of the Earth will then be able to make its judgment. I have no doubt that, like the CPRE, it will be converted and say that the Labour Government are doing an absolutely first-class job.
I have stated the Government's record up to February, and we have not been resting on our laurels in the few weeks since the Opposition last initiated such a debate. We have not stopped working and we will continue to modernise. We have issued revised drafts of planning policy guidance on development plans and on regional planning—PPG12 and PPG11. We have released the new household projection figures, set up a new system of plan, monitor and manage and officially launched the new business-led regional development agencies, which take a strategic overview of the needs of each of the English regions.
On 12 April, I published a report detailing progress on our modernisation planning initiative over the past 15 months. I sent every Member of the House a copy, to keep them informed. I have not heard any criticisms of

the report since Conservative Members received it. If anything, I have had slight congratulation from one of them. We are now moving in the right direction.
On 23 March, we published our revised PPG3, on housing. I was asked about that in the, previous debate on this subject. I am happy that the revised PPG3 was warmly received, even by those on the Opposition Benches. It represents a major departure from previous policy and introduces, for the first time, a sequential approach to planning for housing.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: rose—

Mr. Caborn: I shall give way in a moment.
No longer will there be a stampede to build ad hoc on green-field sites. Priority must be given to recycled land and vacant sites before green-field sites are built on—brown-field first must make sense. If Conservative Members think differently, they should say so. I give the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) the opportunity to do so now.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister intervened earlier to say that it is important to distinguish between green-field sites and the green belt. He rightly says that the draft of PPG3 refers to a sequential approach for development plans in which previously developed land is considered first and green-field sites after, but PPG3 also refers to urban extensions. That could come into conflict with the green-belt policy. In respect of that sequential approach, why did not he say expressly in PPG3 that building on green-belt land should be a last resort?

Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a presumption against building on green belt—it is quite specific. It is for local authorities to make recommendations—on structure plans and through the examination in public, which I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking part in—if they want to change the green belt. That is up to them. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept such changes.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on any specific application or development of a structure plan, but the debates that people are having during the examination in public try to resolve some of those difficult issues. I remind him that there is a presumption against building on the green belt.

Mr. Lansley: I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister's view, but can I take it that I am therefore wrong to think that PPG3, which refers to considering extension of urban areas before considering the use of green-field sites, can come into conflict with PPG2 on green belt? Is it to be presumed under the sequential approach to development plans that building on, and allocation of, green-belt land for development should be the last resort?

Mr. Caborn: I repeat: there is a presumption against such development in PPG2, which refers to the green belt. If a planning authority wants an urban extension, which would be a major shift, that will have to be in its structure plan and the planning guidance. We have treated PPG3 like any other planning guidance. It is out for consultation at the moment and we will make the final decisions. I reiterate that there is a presumption against building on green belt. That stands.


Let me deal with what will happen in the future. As I have said, I have given you an update on what has happened since the February debate—on what we have done in practical terms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister keeps using the word "you". I must ask him to use correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Caborn: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government's record up to and beyond February has been presented to the House; let me now say what we shall be doing in future. In a few weeks, we shall release the first figures from the national land use database, which will be a domesday book for the new millennium. We have had a big debate about building on brown-field sites. When this Government came to office, I asked a simple question: how much brown-field land was available? The answer was, "We do not know." One of our first moves was an attempt to establish the facts, so that we could have a reasonable debate. We wanted to discover exactly how much brown-field land we had in this nation of ours—and we should know the answer in the next few weeks. The information will give details of all brown-field sites that are ripe for development.
Before the summer, Richard Rogers's urban task force will publish its report, which will inject new ideas and momentum into our goal of returning life to our towns and cities. That report will be followed, later in the year, by urban and rural White Papers setting out practical policies for the implementation of the ideas presented in it. All our initiatives attack not just the symptoms but the causes of urban decline, with the aim of creating urban renewal. If we can make our urban centres more vibrant, exciting and pleasant places in which to live, work and play, we shall already have gone a long way towards protecting our countryside from the pressures of continued development.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is aware of the situation in Nottinghamshire, because he has been there. He is now referring to perhaps the most crucial aspect of the planning system. If we cannot end the depopulation of our cities by means of the "joined-up" policies that he has mentioned, we really are in trouble. Urban regeneration—the tackling of problems such as crime, poor housing, the lack of services such as education, and under-achievement —is fundamental to the easing of pressure on the green belt.

Mr. Caborn: I know of the problems that my hon. Friend experiences in the Nottingham area. Under the new deal for regeneration, the Government have committed more than £3 billion over the next three years. That will complement the housing investment that I mentioned, and will make real improvements in the most deprived areas—areas to which my hon. Friend has referred.
On Monday I was in Manchester, announcing the names of the winners of a competition to build new homes at Britannia basin in Castlefield. That regeneration project attracted 162 entries, which was the second-highest response ever received by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The response demonstrates the extent of

interest in the reuse of brown-field sites. Similar initiatives are under way elsewhere in the country, but that particular initiative involved designers and developers such as Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash, along with RIBA, in a creative move to combine the talents of many young people. We were told that that had never been encouraged under the last Administration.
Our enthusiasm for the urban renaissance shows that we are fully committed to the countryside. As the House is doubtless fed up with being told, more Labour Members than Conservative Members represent rural constituencies, and they are doing a damn good job. Our concern must be not just with the enjoyment of the countryside for its own sake, but for those who live and work there. Only this week, I had a discussion with members of our Back-Bench rural group to try to find new ways of returning life to the economies of run-down areas of rural England. Rural England is changing, and the new Labour Government will respond to that change.
The rural White Paper will examine the long-term future for the English countryside and how policies on the economy, health, education, crime, agriculture and the environment will support a sustainable countryside and rural communities in the future. It will consider how the prosperity and competitiveness of the rural economy can be strengthened, how development and regeneration policies can help those areas in need, and how we can ensure that all rural people have opportunities to participate fully in society.
Our consultation on the discussion document "Rural England" ends tomorrow, and we shall consider the responses carefully as we prepare the White Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members complaining. They initiated the debate, and I thank them heartily for enabling me to present the Government's record. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. I hope that Conservative Members are enjoying it.
There will be close co-ordination as we link the urban White Paper to the proposals being developed in the rural White Paper. This is joined-up government with joined-up money. Our commitment to protecting our green spaces and green belt could not be stronger. As Opposition Members know, development is permitted in the green belt only under very special circumstances. There is a presumption against such development. We see the green belt as vital to stopping urban sprawl and supporting sustainable development. There is no evidence that we have any intention of weakening our policy on the green belt. The facts speak for themselves. Since we came to power two years ago, we have increased the size of the green belt by some 30,000 hectares. That is not a loss: it is a major gain.
I remind the House that green belt does not mean green field. A green-field site is any undeveloped land. Not all green belt is free from development. Many developments existed long before the green belt was defined. Development in green belt frequently involves redevelopment of previously used sites. This Government, like their predecessors, have a policy to try to ensure that such redevelopments yield environmental improvements compared with the developments they replace, and that happens by and large.
Equally, green belt is not a landscape designation. All kinds and qualities of land, including derelict sites, may be in the green belt. Less than 5 per cent. of green belt


overlaps with statutory national landscape or wildlife designations. Green belt is also not a national designation: it is primarily a local designation within a regional framework, and decisions about the setting and altering of boundaries, or about permitting development, rest primarily with the local authority and local people, and that will continue. That is why regional planning policy guidance shows the weight we attach to continued protection.
The future is about harnessing growth to promote a better quality of urban life and to bring life back to the hearts of our towns and cities. That will relieve pressure on the countryside. The Government aim to provide sufficient housing so that everyone who wants one can have a decent home. We also aim to ensure that houses are of better quality, built in a better environment, and provide for sustainable communities in which people are proud to live.[Interruption.] We even have young people on our side. That was a little cheer and a "Hear, hear". If Conservative Members disagree with the objective of providing decent homes for people to live in, they should say so.
Urban renaissance and protection of the countryside are not mutually exclusive: they are interlinked. That was one of the weaknesses of the previous Administration's policies. They let development rip in the green belt and on green-field sites, and they allowed inner cities and towns to rot. Let us stop this nonsense about urban versus rural and town versus city. Let us get on with the job of improving the quality of our housing and environment and creating real sustainable development. That is exactly what we are doing, and what we shall continue to do.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The subject of the protection of green-field sites in my constituency is not new to the Minister, because I have raised this matter with him. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity of today's debate, initiated by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to bring to the House's attention again the grave injustice in the county of Devon.
The Devon county structure plan consultation began almost two and a half years ago, when I was a Minister in the previous Government. I made representations in a written submission on behalf of my constituents. I wrote to my colleague, the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, prior to becoming involved in the county structure plan consultation. In November 1995, the then Minister, Mr. Robert Jones, wrote to me when I queried the number of houses predicted for Devon, and in particular the proposal for a new town to be built in my constituency on green-field sites. He said that
these figures should not be regarded as inflexible targets and they should be subject to testing through the structure plan process.
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I do not claim to be an expert in planning matters. However, I have learned quite a lot in the past two and a half years. I have made written submissions at every opportunity throughout the structure plan process, and I spent four days at the examination in public in Devon, on three of which I gave evidence. The message that came home to me was that when the Government came to office, they did not share the previous Government's view that the figures should not be regarded as "inflexible targets" and should be subject to testing through the structure plan process.
As a Member of Parliament, I have used every democratic process open to me, including an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House. I have personally presented a letter at the door of No. 10 Downing street to try to get Ministers to recognise the views of the people of my constituency. I am not the only one involved. On Conservative-controlled East Devon district council, there is cross-party opposition to the plan for a new town to be built in east Devon.
We know why there needs to be a new town in east Devon: it is nothing to do with my constituents, but it has to do with the views of the Labour-controlled city of Exeter, which wants to grow. That is not an unreasonable request, but it wants to expand at the expense of my constituents in east Devon, and to extend the borders of the city of Exeter into my constituency. That was made very clear at the examination in public, and it is why the Labour-controlled city council and its Member of Parliament have supported the proposal for the new town.
I should be interested to hear the Minister's views because although the area in question is not green belt, it is green field. When we talk about urban sprawl and pushing out the boundaries of urban areas, we are talking about such development coming into my constituency.
There is an additional complication in this particular part of my constituency. The land that has been identified as the most likely site for the new town borders Exeter airport in my constituency. The airport is vital to the economy not just of my constituency but of that part of Devon. There should be no development close to the border of the airport which would restrict its growth and development—that is important for its future viability.
That matter was raised in specific terms at the examination in public. Indeed, evidence was taken from people who gave the panel their views on the noise from the airport—noise such as that produced during the ground testing of aircraft engines at night when they are being repaired and serviced. I was shocked, because one of the Minister's predecessors in the previous Government told me in writing that examinations in public should not be site-specific. One cannot get more site-specific than the taking of evidence about the noise generated in a particular locality during the ground testing of aircraft engines.
What has really saddened me—and saddened my constituents, as proven in my own surveys, in questions from the media, and in public meetings that I have held—is that there is universal opposition to building that new town in my constituency. The people do not want it; the people do not need it. East Devon district council planning authority, which is the representative body closest to local people, does not want the new town, and has opposed it at every stage of the consultation process. Conservatives members of Devon county council have opposed it.
The Liberal Democrats on Devon county council are the ones who approved the new town and voted yes to it. Although some of the district council colleagues of the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council walked with me up to the door of No. 10 Downing street to oppose the plan, those county councillors voted for it because their leader said that, had they not done so, the Deputy Prime Minister would have imposed on the county of Devon even more punitive requirements—and the Government's bully-boy tactics generally in planning bear that out.

Mr. John Hayes: I am rather surprised by my hon. Friend's comments, and


should like to be absolutely clear about them. I assumed, perhaps rather naively, that Liberal Democrats on the county council would be sensitive to local opinion, but perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the true position, which I feel should be amplified. Although we already knew that the Labour party is in favour of urban sprawl and of developing green-field towns, is she telling us that the Liberal Democrats in her part of the country are also in favour of destruction of the green belt, green fields and the countryside?

Mrs. Browning: They voted yes; I sat in the county hall and personally witnessed it.
Perhaps we should not be so surprised that Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions take the views that they do and create the impression that people hold of them—those Ministers carry baggage. The Minister for London and Construction, on 23 January 1997, before he was elected to government, told Planning Week that a target of 60 per cent. of brown-field sites would be "a recipe for disaster" because it would create excessively high densities in cities. He also said that there was "absolutely no doubt" that the only realistic way of meeting the housing figure was to develop new towns and settlements. The Minister shakes his head, but, if he has been misquoted, I hope that he will print a correction.
Before I initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter, to which the Minister replied, I took a rather unprecedented step: I telephoned his private office prior to the debate to let him know what I would say, because I was seeking some co-operation and help from the Government. I went even further.
I presented a letter at No. 10 Downing street to the Prime Minister, seeking his intervention, so that at least the planning authority—East Devon district council—might be able to sit down with Ministers and talk through its grave concerns about the proposals being imposed on it. I wrote:
Your Government has proposed that more homes should be built on brown field sites rather than green field sites. We agree. You have personally assured the people of Devon that local views will be listened to.
I took the Prime Minister at his word—more fool me: not only did he not intervene, but local people have not been listened to. I as a Member of Parliament have not been listened to, and the district council has not been listened to. The Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council has been bullied into pursuing a certain route— [Interruption.] Perhaps that is what the Lib-Lab pact is all about—or perhaps those Liberal Democrat councillors reached their decision voluntarily.

Mr. Raynsford: Before the hon. Lady mentions bullying again, will she just recall that the Conservative Minister whose record she was praising a moment ago proposed a housing figure for the county of Devon that was 7,200 higher than that which the Government have approved because of the county structure plan inquiry? Is that bullying by the Government, or hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative party?

Mrs. Browning: I personally wrote to the Minister, although he may not recall my letter, asking whether, if

the Liberal Democrats who control the county council genuinely felt that they did not want to support the figure, but were genuinely concerned that Ministers would force them to accept an even higher one if they refused the initial one, he would—before we reach the final stage in the structure plan consultation—confirm to me that the councillors were misguided in that assumption. We have never had—

Mr. Raynsford: Answer the question.

Mrs. Browning: I shall answer the question in a moment. I do not intend to dodge the Minister's questions, as he has been dodging mine for the past year.
I wrote to the Minister so that I might be able to take his reply to the county council and say to its Liberal Democrat leader, "You have this wrong. Ministers are not going to foist anything on you. Democracy is alive and well and is living in Devon. Local people will be listened to, as the Prime Minister promised." But I was not able to do that.
We must therefore assume, in the absence of the type of assurance that I was seeking from the Minister, that perhaps the Liberal Democrats were right. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head and says no. I think that we must assume that the Liberal Democrats, like Labour-controlled Exeter city council, are in cahoots in the matter and are anxious to foist the new town, against the wishes of the people, on my constituents. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. We are going to have the town—we know it now—which will be a tribute to new Labour. We must find a suitable name for it.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Raynsfordville.

Mrs. Browning: Yes; that would be such a good name for it.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: Yes—I am so generous to the Minister; it is unprecedented.

Mr. Raynsford: I am so grateful to the hon. Lady. Perhaps she will now answer the question that I asked her.

Mrs. Browning: I shall do so.
Whatever figures were finally arrived at in the structure plan, which is a democratic process involving many stages, my colleague in the previous Government explicitly stated in his letter, which I quoted to the Minister and in oral evidence to the examination in public, that the figures were not set in tablets of stone, but were subject to the scrutiny of the democratic process—namely, the structure plan consultation that has lasted for almost two and a half years.
What I do not understand, and what the people of my constituency do not accept, is that although we gave approval and support to the Government's announced policies of building on brown-field sites, of listening to local people and of following the democratic process, we could not get from Ministers one iota of sympathy or support. Ministers wanted to railroad through the proposals, despite the fact that, as we knew, revised figures would be forthcoming.


The Minister quoted the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The CPRE advised the Government that there was likely to be a readjustment of the figures. There was every reason not to railroad through the proposals, but to say, "Let's look at the new figures, revise our decision making, and allow the local people to revise their decision making in the light of local feelings and new information."
The Devon branch of the CPRE stated:
The South West Regional Planning Conference is now aiming for the 'lowest technically justified figure' under the new process proposed in the revised Regional Planning rules, and at the end of this year we shall get the new household projections based on the 1995 figures (instead of the 1992 figures currently used) …
These are expected to show lower rates of net inward migration, but there are now serious doubts about other aspects of the national"—
housing—
projections.
The issue was raised in oral evidence at the examination in public. Ministers knew about it, yet they have not been prepared to say that there could be a moratorium in Devon while the figures were analysed and considered further so that we would not have to rush into making decisions about building two new towns—one in my constituency—but would be able to reflect the views of local people based on accurate figures rather than on figures that have been universally accepted as out of date.
The Minister prays in aid representatives of the building industry. I sat through four days of an examination in public, before which the builders' representative in my constituency had already named the new town. What a mockery of democracy it is when a building company circulates literature and names a new town before the democratic process is over.
We do not expect to win this battle, but I do not intend to throw in the towel. We are now looking for evidence that the Minister is genuine in his desire to protect green-field sites, to use brown-field sites first and then to reassess the situation. I hope that if he is, he will accept from me a request by East Devon district council, which now has to produce the plans for the town.
Not only does the council have to produce those plans, but it has been told by the Prime Minister that it has to produce them. After I had presented my letter to Downing street, the Prime Minister wrote back to me, and his final paragraph states:
East Devon District Council must now commence work as soon as possible to produce a Local Plan to 2011 which makes provision for the new community proposed in the Structure Plan.
That edict from on high before the consultation period was over was not greeted with joy in the county of Devon. It was one more example of the way in which the Government say one thing but, when faced with a situation in which they could have made a difference and stood by their word and their policies, they deliberately fail to honour them.
Will people from the Minister's Department sit down around a table, without press or publicity, with the representatives of the planning authority, East Devon district council, and discuss with them how they are now to apply the planning regulations to the new town against the background of the new rules under PPG3 and other guidance, which the Minister says now represent the way forward?
Why should the people of Devon be deprived of the opportunity to avail themselves of the new policies when the Minister has made such great play of them? We have said that we will support them too, yet he wants to deny them to the people of Devon. If he can answer my question and agree to that meeting today, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Mrs. Browning: I was giving way, but I had also finished my speech.

Mr. Raynsford: I thank the hon. Lady. It was unclear, because her hon. Friend stood up behind her.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot both give way and finish her speech at the same time. I shall assume that she was giving way to the Minister.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady must not confuse the role of Government with the role of the relevant local authorities—the county and district councils, which have specific statutory planning functions. She must recognise that the process has, quite properly, involved consideration at an examination in public of the figures in the draft structure plan, and the acceptance by Government of amended figures substantially lower than those proposed by Conservative Ministers in the previous Government. The consequences of the structure plan now have to work through to the local plans produced by district councils in line with normal planning procedures. The hon. Lady is a former Minister, and should know that it would be improper for any Minister to interfere inappropriately in such statutory proceedings.

Mrs. Browning: I am not asking the Minister to interfere inappropriately, but surely it is not unreasonable for a planning authority to seek advice from the Department on a specific issue. That request does not come from me personally; it is being articulated by me on behalf of the district council, and is an official request from the planning authority. I aqm sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can respond positively.

Mr. Raynsford: I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are only too happy to respond positively and that PPG3, which is now out for consultation, may be one element to be taken into account. I understood her to be seeking not advice but a meeting to negotiate the location of a new development, which would be different and entirely inappropriate.

Mrs. Browning: That was not the content of my letter to the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister to read carefully the wording of that letter, in which I said that we had had to accept that the planning decision had been foisted upon us. The meeting would be to advise the planning authority whether it could avail itself of the new policies, or whether the Government were saying that any changes in


policy would not apply to the council in connection with the new development. It wanted to know whether it would have to adhere to the existing system.
It was on that basis, and in good faith, that the planning authority sought a meeting. The aim was not to alter the figures. We have recognised that we have lost that battle. The people of east Devon will remember it for ever as a battle that they fought and lost. We seek to ensure that whatever has to be done under statute, we make as good a job of it as possible. That is a sad situation.

Mr. Colin Burgon: I am pleased to be able to bring a northern perspective to this debate because as my constituency contains within its boundaries most of the green-belt land within the city of Leeds, green belt and planning issues concern me greatly.
Elmet contains towns such as Wetherby and Garforth, and villages such as Scholes, Barwick, Methley and Boston Spa, which value their separate identity within Leeds. As the Member of Parliament, my desire is to work wherever possible to maintain the character, identity and physical integrity of the towns and villages that I represent. I believe that the planning system should be used, where appropriate, to pursue that objective vigorously.
Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I am a relative novice in planning issues, but I have increasingly realised that, certainly in a city such as Leeds, the future of the green belt is intimately bound up with the developments taking place in the inner cities.
There is little doubt that we need to maximise the number of new homes built on previously developed land—that is, on brown-field sites or, as many of us would prefer to say, recycled land. That will not only ensure that we preserve as many green-field sites as possible, but will regenerate our existing towns and cities. The need to make our urban areas attractive places to live is the other side of the coin of saving our countryside and green spaces. Any person who sees the green belt and urban renaissance as two entirely separate processes is wrong.
I am pleased to say that, as in many other respects, my city of Leeds is giving a lead in city centre regeneration. In my recent talks with councillors, it has been stressed that the city already achieves the Government target of putting 60 per cent. of its new development on recycled land. I am proud of my city, as hon. Members would expect, and I know that it is keen to do even better. The Government's task is to give the encouragement and support that will enable the council to do that. That will require economic, fiscal and regulatory measures in transport, land assembly, site remediation and building rehabilitation, to facilitate a partnership approach designed to achieve the desired objective of urban renewal—or, as the Minister called it, in language better than I could use, urban renaissance.
At national level, it must be remembered that many new homes—up to 1 million, it is estimated—could be provided by refurbishing rundown empty dwellings, by so-called "living above the shop" initiatives, and by the conversion of old office and industrial premises, as seen in many waterfront sites.
It must not be thought that recycled land is available only in urban centres. In my constituency, we have a 52-acre colliery site to be developed at Allerton Bywater. I am sure that because it has been chosen as a millennium village site, the development will be of the highest quality, but the other benefit to local people is that developing the recycled sites will enable us better to protect the green belt round Allerton, which separates it from its neighbouring village of Kippax.
The Government are fully behind the developments that I have mentioned. The evidence, as outlined by the Minister, is clear from the document "Planning for the Communities of the Future", and from the work of the urban task force under Lord Rogers, alongside whom I am happy to serve on the Millennium Commission advisory panel. I am impressed by his grasp of the subject. There is also the initiative of the millennium communities, and the recently issued draft planning guidance on housing, PPG3, which will be much discussed this afternoon.
The other key policy strands promoted by the Government that develop the new thinking—I shall not say "joined-up thinking"; I had better stick to the phrase "new coherent approach"—are sustainability and integrated public transport. Sustainability requires us to cease pepper-potting new housing developments in small villages and towns, and to focus on more substantial mixed tenure and mixed use developments which contribute to viable and mixed communities. Everybody deserves a decent home, and affordable housing provision must be an integral part of our approach. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Wetherby area of my constituency. Far too often, young people are priced out of living in that area. That cannot be right and I hope that the Government will encourage local councils to develop ways of making the long-talked-about aspiration of affordable housing a reality.
The emphasis on enhanced public transport provision similarly requires us to concentrate development along existing or potential public transport corridors instead of in relatively isolated and car-dependent communities. That might, in special circumstances, require the redrawing of green belt boundaries—their relaxing in public transport corridors, but their tightening elsewhere. I know that Ministers will be actively considering the implications of such an approach.
In looking ahead, I urge the Government to do two things. First, they should simplify and demystify the planning system. Much of it is virtually incomprehensible to non-experts. In our successful campaign to defend the green belt around the village of Thorner, a key element was the painstaking and detailed work of Ruth Long, the secretary of the action group, but not everybody will be as lucky as we were with her support. Secondly, we all recognise the need for a proactive and modernised planning system at both regional and local level, and a strong partnership approach to implementation involving the local authorities, the private sector and public transport operators.
My constituents recognise, and I never tire of telling them, that it was a Labour Government who first established the green belt and the modern planning system in 1945. It is a Labour Government who will be prepared to plan and regulate for a more cohesive and sustainable society for us all.

Mr. Tom Brake: There can be no doubt that the Tory party has a death wish—which is something to be encouraged. That is obvious from the way in which it is conducting the local election campaign and its well-publicised splits, and from the subject it has chosen for debate today.
Let us consider the Tories' record; it is not one to be proud of. They achieved only just over 40 per cent. of development on brown-field land, as we have heard from the Minister. Every hon. Member can think of green-field developments in their constituencies which the previous Administration allowed to proceed. In many cases, the previous Secretary of State forced through those developments, both residential and out of town, on appeal. We all know that it is de rigueur in the Tory party these days to apologise for past mistakes, whether Thatcherism, or underfunding of the NHS or the state education system. The Tories should also say sorry today for desecrating our towns and countrywide.

Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council voted yes to a new town in my constituency?

Mr. Brake: The hon. Lady has already given the answer to that question. She will be aware that the previous Secretary of State used bully-boy tactics to drive through planning applications, and I am certain that the current Secretary of State is no stranger to strong-arm tactics.
I am grateful to the official Opposition for initiating this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to examine Labour's record. I have perhaps a more balanced view of what the Government have achieved so far than the official Opposition. The Government have abandoned predict and provide, which is good, but they have replaced it with plan, monitor and manage—or PMM. It is always difficult to know what acronyms stand for, and the view of many experts is that PMM is an unknown quantity.
This Administration have set a higher target for brown-field development than the previous Administration, and that is a good decision. However, they have not so far indicated that they are willing to revise that figure upwards on the basis of the change in the household projections. I am sure that the Minister, when he responds, will explain why the Government cannot increase the 60 per cent. figure, but I understand that it was anticipated that 175,000 houses would be needed each year when the projection was for 4.4 million new households.
It is now anticipated that 150,000 houses will be needed each year. Sixty per cent. of 175,000 is 105,000. Surely the Government will still be able to achieve 105,000 houses, even though it is now anticipated that only 3.8 million new households will exist. Therefore, in 10 years' time, when the Government anticipate hitting the 60 per cent. target, they will actually hit a 70 per cent. target, because 105,000 is 70 per cent. of 150,000. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is considering increasing the target.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated assent.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adopting the point that my hon. Friend the Member

for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made earlier. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck, because the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who replied to my hon. Friend, totally ignored the point. The hon. Gentleman may have more luck with the Minister who will wind up the debate.

Mr. Brake: The Minister has been nodding, so I hope that his reply will have some substance. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) highlighted the concern about the absence of any precise regulations covering the clearing of contaminated land. That is a major omission which the Government should address as soon as possible because without such regulations, developers will not be willing to develop brown-field sites.
The Government have issued draft PPG3, which I accept is good in parts. However, it mentions the need to take into account the Government's latest household projections. Will the Minister explain whether that will lead to a bottom-up or a top-down approach to establishing the number of houses needed in each region? PPG3 requires further consideration. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning quoted the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, but that organisation described the draft PPG3 in its current form as too sketchy. I hope that he will put some flesh on the bones of PPG3 shortly.
PPG3 says that the sequential approach should give priority to the reuse of previously developed land, bringing back empty homes into use and promoting the conversion of empty buildings. Those are all very sensible aims, but why is there a complete absence of any mechanisms to achieve such worthy ends? For example, PPG3 does not include a green-field development tax, or VAT equalisation for new build and conversions. It is upbeat about urban design, but so far, the Government have not willed the means to achieve such lofty aims. Where will local authorities find the staff—and the money to pay them—to deal with the issue?
What is the Government's role in relation to urban design? I understand that the Government have disbanded their urban design team. According to the Civic Trust, there is not a single person with sole responsibility for design in the DETR, although the Government managed to find £8 million for the Highways Agency to increase its maintenance programme. I understand also that the Government are not willing to fund the Urban Design Alliance, which is supported by many professional organisations. [Interruption.] If the Minister considers that to be rubbish, he can say so in his response, but that is the view of at least one significant organisation with an important role to play in urban design. The Government are paying lip service to good urban design, but that will not stop a single mock-Tudor mansion being built in this country. Providing staff and resources will.
PPG3 should be an opportunity to meet the environmental challenges posed by new homes, which include a threat to dwindling water supplies in parts of the country and an increase in CO2 emissions. There is also the potential to use renewable energies in new housing stock, and a lot could be done in that respect. I am pleased that my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, is taking the lead on these matters and will soon install solar panels in some of its social housing—an action that I commend to the House.


The London borough of Sutton also supports a project approved by the Secretary of State to establish a zero-energy residential development. I understand that this is the first instance of the Secretary of State approving an application in which the local authority has accepted the second-lowest tender, rather then the lowest. The application was allowed to proceed because it was a sustainable development project. I welcome the Secretary of State's backing for that scheme.
There is much to be done about building regulations, to improve energy conservation and the reuse of water. I hope that the Minister will say something about that, either today or when PPG3 is reissued. I hope too that he will spell out how PPG3 will be implemented. It is one thing to issue a document in draft and again after consultation, but it is another thing entirely to ensure that what is contained in the document is implemented.
What is the Government's action plan for implementation? What training will be given to staff in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and in the relevant Government offices so that they understand what is in the document? What best practice guidance will be issued? What will the Government do to ensure that local authority decisions reflect the contents of PPG3?
I look forward to the Minister's response to these important questions. I hope that he will be able to give some detailed explanations and reassurance on these matters.

Mr. Peter Bradley: When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was half expecting Conservative Members to stage a break from their Thatcherite past. No doubt they have rewritten their speeches several times since Monday, but sadly, it seems to be business as usual. They have nothing new to say about housing, planning or the green belt.
As my hon. Friend the Minister noted, this is the fifth time that this debate has been held in recent months, which makes it all the more surprising that the subject has been chosen for an Opposition day. I could not help but notice that there were never more than nine Back-Bench Conservative Members present during the opening speech by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Two drifted away during his oration and—such were the rumours spreading through the House about the quality of the speech—one came in, then left again. No doubt that Conservative Member had far better things to do in the precincts of the House, given the modern Conservative party's greater interest in bloodletting than in housebuilding.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, we have heard no apology for the Tory record during 18 years in office. In that time, we saw new lows in housing investment, ever-reducing numbers in social housing, record mortgage arrears and repossession rates, and spiralling levels of homelessness. The previous Government had no understanding of the need to integrate jobs with housing provision. They presided over a free market free-for-all—a NIMBY charter—in which there was housing for the few and exclusion for the many. It is to those few—that dwindling sector of the electorate—that today's Conservative party is pitching its appeal.
Conservative housing policy contributed to the pressure on the green belt about which Opposition Members now complain. That they have chosen this subject for debate shows how out of touch they are, in town and country alike.
As has been noted, the number of Labour Members with rural and semi-rural constituencies is greater than the total number of Conservative Members, and greater than the total number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in rural seats put together. Last July, the rural group of Labour Members wrote to about 25 leading countryside and rural organisations to ask what they thought should be the Government's top five priorities in this Parliament. The organisations contacted were authoritative, and included bodies such as the former Rural Development Commission, the Countryside Commission, the County Councils Network, the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Local Councils and the National Trust.
None of those bodies referred to the green belt in response to our question about priorities, but there was a strong consensus about the need for modern, flexible planning regimes and for affordable housing in and for rural communities. The Conservative party in opposition may be as deaf to those priorities as it was in government, 'but they make up the real rural and housing agenda in this country.
In 1990, the Rural Development Commission estimated that about 80,000 additional and affordable homes would be needed in rural communities in the five years to 1995. Fewer than 17,000 were provided under the previous Government, who provided neither the necessary funding nor the planning regime that would have made available the land supply for the development of that housing.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No, I want to make progress, as I know that other hon. Members want to contribute.
Tory councils up and down the country set their face against the provision of social housing. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is not present to hear that, although the average in England for the provision of social housing was 23 per cent., the figure was as low as 15 per cent. in rural districts, which were mainly Conservative-controlled, during the years of the Conservative Government. The matter was left to the market.
In 1979 and 1990, surveys by the Department of the Environment, as it then was, found that one person in four in rural communities lived on the margins of poverty. In 1991, the Rural Development Commission estimated that about 40 per cent. of the rural community could not afford home ownership. Even so, between 1985 and 1990, 91,000 council homes in the countryside were sold under the right-to-buy provisions and not replaced. Indeed, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has estimated that most new private housing in the countryside was at the upper end of the price scale.
The previous Government's policies encouraged migration into the countryside. That has led to the gentrification and geriatrification of rural communities, and forced up land and house prices. It has also forced out the rural poor, young and old alike, and meant that


rural homelessness spiralled upwards at a rate far in excess of the frightening levels evident in towns and inner cities.
All that has applied pressure to housing in urban centres and the green belt, where young people from rural communities have been forced to migrate in search of homes and jobs. It has contributed to the undermining of rural communities and the breakdown of their social infrastructure. Without housing and employment for the next generation, who will send their children to the village school or buy their provisions at the village shop? That is why, under the previous Government, village schools were not considered viable and were closed, and why village shops have been in decline.
Yet 10 million people live in the rural communities of this country. Of the 1 million homes that it has been predicted that they will need between 1991 and 2011, 500,000 will be generated in and by rural communities. No one argues against the idea that a policy to protect the green belt is important, but it is a delusion to think that somehow it will aid people living in rural communities.
In a full page advertisement entitled "Affordable Homes is the Key to Sustainable Development", the RDC said:
If the current concern about development in the countryside leads to even tighter constraints, the situation will worsen for many rural people.
The RDC has no axe to grind. It has come to an objective assessment of the needs of rural communities and how they should be met. Elsewhere, the RDC has also said:
We are concerned that many of the policy responses to the household growth debate adopt an environmentally biased interpretation of sustainable development which undermines the achievement of related social and economic objectives … From a rural perspective, therefore, urban concentration can exacerbate rather than combat social exclusion.
There is a desperate need for proper recognition, by central and regional government, and by local authorities themselves, of the needs for new housing in rural communities. There is a desperate need, too, to increase the funding and assistance made available by the Housing Corporation for that purpose. There is a need for innovative approaches to the identification of land, and the funding of social and affordable housing in the countryside to overcome the diseconomies of scale, and the additional costs of land acquisition and building involved in such projects.
There is an even more pressing need for a flexible and sensitive planning regime. Draft PPG3 goes some way towards providing a system under which land supply can become less problematic. I hope that the Green Paper will say something about making it possible for local authorities to define the tenure of the housing that they seek to provide to address local need.
There is an urgent need for integrated and strategic planning. The regional development agencies will have a major role to play in ensuring that wherever jobs go, housing exists for people seeking them. Without both jobs and houses in local communities, people will migrate either to find employment or to find homes because there are none in their local communities.
The need for jobs and housing requires a more flexible approach to planning in the countryside, and that is the way towards sustainable community life. That is the way to sustain the village shop and the local school. That is

how we can reduce dependency on both public and private transport in the countryside. It is the way in which to reduce the migration that distorts the demography of both rural and urban communities. It is also one means of reducing pressure on the green belt.
Only so much can be achieved by recycling brown land. Infill development is important, and it can probably make a larger contribution than many people suspect. However, it is not of itself the answer. I am not just reconciled to the idea, but eager to see green fields developed for the community where such developments are needed, where there is local consent and consensus, and where the form and quality of the development is sensitive and appropriate. After years of dodging the problem, we should listen to the voice of rural communities, because that is what they are saying. We should show leadership in government.
The Government's emerging housing and planning policies are making an important start on that crucial project. However, the reduction of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme from 6 per cent. to 2.3 or 2.4 per cent. is disappointing. Only 883 new homes were built in 98 districts last year, with 218 districts receiving no allocation. We need to address that point.
We need proper local assessment of housing need in rural communities. There must be a rural element in the new deal for communities. We need more resources, and the reinstatement of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme to at least 6 per cent. A greater commitment is also required from the capital receipts initiative in rural communities.
We are developing innovative partnerships between the private sector, local authorities, social landlords and funding institutions, and that development must be accelerated. We need a more flexible planning regime, and I hope that we will have one soon. We also need a greater sense of leadership at parish council level. Development in rural communities is controversial and it requires imagination and commitment.
The Government must send town and parish councils the message that they are committed to their future. We have not done that with sufficient emphasis in previous consultation documents about the future of local government, and we must give parish councils the tools that they need to show the real leadership that we require of them in the countryside. A new planning regime is required which attaches more importance to consultation, consensus and consent.
The Conservatives do themselves no favours, and do rural communities a great disservice, by submerging rural needs and legitimate aspirations in their crocodile tears for the green belt. The Government are talking to rural communities, and listening to them. A concerted start has been made on reducing the problems of homelessness and lack of housing in rural communities, but a great deal more remains to be done. It will not be easy to achieve the targets that we should be setting, but with a proper understanding of the problems, a commitment to address them and a sense of true partnership with rural communities, we will get an important job done.

Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Both


exposed their essentially urban, or suburban, outlook on this problem. I agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin that it is important to find affordable housing in our villages. That is precisely why the Conservative Government abolished the right to buy from housing associations in small rural villages. Throughout our discussions on these matters, we have said that children of those who live in villages must be found affordable housing. Attempts to pillory the Conservative party on that point are misplaced. The hon. Gentleman addressed the rest of his speech towards finding more space for housing in rural areas.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington speaks entirely from a suburban London standpoint. His main proposal was to provide more training for officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how to interpret PPG3. That is not an overwhelmingly important call. Perhaps it says more about the Liberal Democrats than anything else.
Both hon. Members felt it odd that we should have chosen the subject of housing and the green belt for debate in the run-up to the local government elections. We did so for the very good reason that we alone fight the corner of the countryside against unreasonable development. As evidence of that, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington may care to consider that Councillor Eric Hodges, the Liberal Democrat chairman of a Wiltshire council committee considering these matters, was reported in the local paper this week as jettisoning his opposition to unattractive development between Swindon and Wootton Bassett. If he could have a bypass for the latter, his own town, he would be happy to accept the 4,500 houses involved. That is typical, of course, of the Liberal Democrats. They pay great lip service to preserving the countryside. but as soon as they see some opportunity—a bypass here, a bypass there—my goodness me, they give in to the Labour Government.
This is the second opportunity that the Conservatives have had this week to demonstrate that we are the only people who care about the countryside. The first came on Tuesday, when we debated clause 2 of the Finance Bill and opposed the Government's absurd increase in the price of petrol, which is so damaging to my rural constituents. Today, we can demonstrate our real concern for the green belt. I welcome that opportunity as I am certain that the debate will be widely covered in local papers throughout the country. What we have to say will have a significant effect in the local government elections next Thursday.
Let me turn to the overall household projection figures. When I was a special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), we said to officials—some of whom may well be listening this afternoon—that it was essential that they should find ways to revisit their original 4.4 million projection. Over a period of months they came back and said, "Terribly sorry, Minister, but there is absolutely no way that we can revisit the figures. We have gone over them in every possible way—backwards and forwards, upside and down. These are the figures. These are the statistical projections. There is nothing we can do about it."
When I was on the Select Committee which recently looked into the matter—two or three other hon. Members in the Chamber today were there too—we again

cross-examined officials and Ministers backwards and forwards. We pressed them. We tried to say, "Surely these figures must be wrong." The message consistently came back, "Well, they may be wrong and we fear they are too low. We predict that the outcome is likely to be 5 million rather than 4.4 million, but we are certain of the absolute robustness of the 4.4 million figure." The Select Committee report on the matter goes to great lengths to say that 4.4 million is, indeed, the figure.
It is surprising, therefore, to discover that the real figure is only 3.8 million. As my hon. Friends have already pointed out, it is extraordinary that the Government can come out with this figure, in the run-up to local government elections incidentally, but with no kind of arithmetic workings as to how they have reached it. They should know that when they do come out with the arithmetic in the autumn, we shall examine it robustly to see exactly how they reached that figure and exactly why they chose to come out with it at this time.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the two figures are based over different time periods?

Mr. Gray: The point about time periods is not necessarily a good one, or if it is, the Government must tell us what the figure would increase to in the period up to 2016.
We can bandy arguments about statistics across the Chamber all afternoon. The most important point is that if, indeed, the new household projections are decreased and if, under the 4.4 million figure, we could get 60 per cent. on to brown-field sites, presumably at 3.8 million we can get significantly more than that on to brown-field sites. I challenge the Minister to respond to that point later this afternoon. So far, he has been weak on everything he has said on this subject. The Select Committee described his evidence as, I think, vacuous and misleading. This afternoon we challenge him, if the projections are as low as his officials are now telling him, to say that he will increase the amount of housing that can be accommodated on brown-field sites.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that he went public in this House a few months ago to say that many people had expressed doubts about the validity of the figures, but he, having looked at them, accepted that they were soundly based? if that is the case, why is he not criticising himself for his own lack of judgment?

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that reminder to us all. I was quoting the Select Committee report. As a member of the Select Committee, I naturally accepted what it said. I am amazed to hear that his officials have now overturned what the Select Committee said and what they themselves said only two or three years ago when I was a special adviser. Nevertheless, it is interesting. Doubtless the Minister will respond to the point during his speech.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gray: My Whips tell me that I must not give way too often, so I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I crack on a bit. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to contribute shortly if I am reasonably brief in my remarks.

I want to refer in particular to my constituency and what is happening in Swindon, not merely because of the constituency interest, but because the Government's approach to the inexorable westward growth of Swindon is a litmus test of their approach to this problem. The Government will know that the Labour-controlled Swindon borough council together with the Liberal Democrat-controlled Wiltshire county council, reached a figure of 66,000 new houses for the county, of which 22,000 would be in the area around Swindon. That comes from a Labour borough, not a Conservative one. According to the new figures just produced, the total has increased to 70,000 houses for the county, of which 26,000 will be in and around Swindon. As a result it looks increasingly likely that the ever precious rural buffer zone between Swindon and my constituency may well be breached.
In the Government's response to the Select Committee report, the Secretary of State said that he would look again at whether or not rural buffer zones should be increased to the strength of the green belt. I challenge the Minister to tell us what his thinking is on the subject of rural buffer zones. Will he reassure me and my constituents in rural north Wiltshire that the rural buffer zone around Swindon will now be strengthened, so that if these extra houses must be found by Wiltshire county council and Swindon borough council, they will not be built on the rural buffer zone between Swindon and my constituency?

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I am sorry, but I am under time constraints. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have been asked to be as short as I can.
The Minister will know of the local view. The Western Daily Press headline states:
Prescott homes plan 'a threat to villages'.
He will know that villages in my constituency have objected to the proposed modification structure plan. In particular, I think of Wootton Bassett, Purton, Lydiard Millicent and Lydiard Tregoze. All the towns and villages around the eastern border of my constituency are threatened by the ever westward sprawl of Swindon.
I challenge the Minister to tell me what he intends to do with regard to Wiltshire and the threat from Swindon borough council. The Minister shakes his head to tell us that he will give us no indication at all. For legal reasons it may be wrong for him to comment at this stage of these considerations.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman well knows that.

Mr. Gray: I accept that point and, as the Minister says from a sedentary position, I well know that myself. It may be that he will not comment this afternoon, but he should know that eventually he will have to sit in judgment on these figures and the structure plan. The House will judge his commitment to both saving the green belt and the countryside by what he does to north Wiltshire.
We are under threat not only from Labour-controlled Swindon expanding westwards, but from the Minister's projections and attitude to the countryside. If the Minister will not be specific on the subject of Swindon, I challenge him at least to be so robust in his remarks this afternoon

on the subject of the rural buffer zone that that will be taken into account by local planners—then I can tell my constituents in north Wiltshire that, contrary to what the Liberal Democrat leader of the committee has said, and contrary to what the Government are doing elsewhere in England, they are safe from Swindon.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: It has been interesting to observe, over the five debates that we have now had on this issue, the evolution of the Conservative party from its previous stance—which I well remember as a leader of a city council and subsequently as an academic—to its present stance. If we were in the business of acronyms we might describe their original stance—most of their time in Government—as DAFT, or "develop anything for Tescos". That changed in the last period of the Conservative Government, when stewardship of the environment was in the hands of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), to TEPID, or "try to engage Parliament in debate". The present stance, which we see this afternoon, can be described as that of a BANANA party, or "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything".
I imagine that this matter has arisen as a result of the Conservative party's attempts to parochialise the debate, the purpose of which is twofold. First, this seems to be about the only debate that Conservative Members can advance without attempting to grab each other by the throat. Secondly, the Conservative party believes that there is some mileage, probably for local electoral purposes, in attempting to deal with the issue area by area and county by county. That rather overthrows the responsibility of this House which is, as my hon. Friends have said, to look at who needs homes where in the future. Can we throw away the provision that we need responsibly to make over the next 20 to 25 years, to ensure both that people who need homes have homes and that they are built in an orderly fashion and, most important in terms of the current debate, that development takes place in a sustainable fashion—that we do not build all over the countryside, but attempt to develop brown-field sites and within cities and towns where possible. The House has a grave responsibility and, frankly, the Opposition are shirking it and misrepresenting the case for political purposes.
To make that misrepresentation, the Conservative party has had to resort to some strange readings of the figures and the debate. That can be for two reasons—either because Conservative Members do not understand the debate, or because they do, but choose to misrepresent it. I am not sure which one applies, but it seems to be a bit of both.
Let us take the new projections. We have already heard an attempted straight comparison of one projection with the other, when in fact the projections have moved forward over a number of years, so are based on a different time frame. We have heard a suggestion that the figures should be exact, but forecasting is not an exact science. It is impossible to get figures exactly right in a forecast, as the Opposition suggest. It was suggested that because the total numbers have come down, the Government can revise the target upwards. That ignores the strong evidence to the Select Committee, which was known when both the new and the original figures came


out, that there are substantial regional variations in respect of migration, different tenures and, most importantly, the availability of brown-field sites.

Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that point is recognised, because 60 per cent. is a national figure—an average that varies according to region?

Dr. Whitehead: That is exactly the point. Within a total target, one must take account of several factors. That means that we must plan properly between regions. In any event, the figure for household growth is not necessarily the same as that for households. If we are serious, we must take account of all those factors rather than adopting the gimcrack, parochial approach of the Tory party.
Brown-field sites in the south of England are in far shorter supply and need much more remediation than in the north of England, which appears to have a substantial supply. That means that we must consider the matter carefully region by region and analyse how to achieve the national target with different approaches in different parts of the country. Simply taking a figure, dividing it by a number for future household growth and using it to up the target misses the point entirely.

Mr. Waterson: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Given his view on the figures, does he think that there is any prospect of the Government meeting even their present 60 per cent. target for brown-field development?

Dr. Whitehead: The answer to that relates to the need to plan ahead over a period, as the previous Government demonstrated by failing miserably to meet their targets. To achieve a much higher target we must put policies in place, as the Government have been doing. I believe that that target is eminently achievable by careful analysis region by region and by developing policies that work towards it over time. It cannot be done in the way that the Opposition appear to suggest.
The Opposition made the grand statement that they had raised the target to 66 per cent., as though that would make anything happen. There was even a dispute among Opposition Members about whether their target was 75, 66, 62 or 61 per cent. They changed their target within weeks. They remind me of a bunch of Trotskyist sects declaring the date of the world revolution when they cannot make it happen.
The truth is that although the new housing projections are slightly lower, the crucial element missing from the argument is that the figures for the south have barely gone down at all. The pressure is on in the south of England, where there is a combination of fewer green-field sites and considerable immigration. That should make us realise that the necessary strategy is not fundamentally different for that part of the country. That is precisely set out in PPG3: we should build on brown-field sites where possible.
I caution the House that setting up a register of brown-field sites will not solve the problem. Some brown-field sites are in the deep countryside, such as former mental hospitals and airfields. Building on such sites would lead to unsustainable deep rural communities

that would become commuter dormitories. We must consider urban and rural sites and how to combine them with a policy of urban renaissance and sustainability by minimising transport corridors and, wherever possible, adding to existing town and city developments so that their resources and transport facilities can be used. That would develop a sustainable pattern of housing, while providing the necessary number of houses to ensure that the House and the Government will be able to say that we have not mortgaged the future for the sake of a quick fix. That is our real task. We will not achieve it by skating over the figures and drawing easy conclusions.
We cannot join the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) in saying that Plymouth council should tear up the sea front and build houses on it. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said, we must do two things in analysing housing, both urban and rural. Urban areas require a denser pattern of housing, but they also need their green lungs. They must be liveable, or we will repeat in future generations the problems of previous ones with cities emptying and people moving to the countryside.
In rural areas, we must ensure that communities remain viable and have affordable housing. If we do not, we will end up with a society of toffs living in rural areas, serviced by people bused out from towns to clean their houses and mend their cars. That is not sustainable either. It is a complex issue that I ask the Conservative party to take seriously. It is not a subject for short-term electoral advantage. It is an honourable, long-term enterprise to get this right for the future of our people. In 20 years, they will curse us if they do not have the housing that they need and if we have not developed it sustainably.

Mr. John Wilkinson: We had a contribution of righteous indignation from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and one of admirable brevity from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), which I shall use as my model. He cited the efforts of a particularly public-spirited lady in his constituency who had helped preserve the green belt in Thorner. I thought of another equally admirable person—perhaps even more admirable, given the scope of his responsibilities—Mr. Ronald Smith, chairman of the London Green Belt Council, of which I have the honour to be president. Assiduity in addressing highly complex planning issues can achieve successful results.
Notwithstanding the partisan contributions, I hope that we are all in this together. We have a duty and obligation to keep this a green and pleasant land. The pressures on the south-east, to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) referred, are enormous. It is noteworthy that, in the revised projections for 1996 to 2021, the number of households in the south-east is expected to increase by no less than 26 per cent., or 900,000, and in London by 21 per cent., or 600,000. Those pressures are growing all the time and are accentuated, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, by migration from the north to the south for economic reasons. There is also migration for reasons of social demography, with people gravitating to the south, especially the south coast, to retire. There is inward migration from the influx of refugees and the legitimate immigration of the dependants of immigrants from


overseas. All those factors make the pressures on London and the south-east the greatest. We must pay particular attention to them.
There are some aspects of the Government's policy as outlined in PPG3 of which I must be critical. An emphasis has been placed on transport corridors. In the Stevenage case, that was the justification for gobbling up large tracts of green belt and open countryside for the development of housing. In the south-east, the transport infrastructure needs are so great that the Government's emphasis can have a major impact.
There is the Central Railway project to run freight and passenger trains from the north-west and the midlands along the Chiltern line, across London and to the channel tunnel. If it is constructed, with passenger stations along the line, it could provide an opportunity under the provisions in PPG3 for new housing communities to be established in a particularly sensitive green belt in a corridor beyond the M25. There are plans for a transport exchange associated with the projected road-rail freight facility at Colnbrook and for the Parkway station near the M25 with the Great North Eastern Railway. All around the M25, there are pressures on the countryside and green belt associated with transport facilities.
The Government say in PPG3 that facilities for car parking and the density of housing should be such that more emphasis is placed on public transport than the motor car, so the risk of public transport facilities impinging on housing development to permit more extensive housing in areas that otherwise would be countryside becomes greater all the time.
There is also a predisposition to allow existing communities to expand at the edges, rather than to permit the development of new towns or communities in the countryside. This is all very well. I understand the thinking behind it, although there are exceptions to it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton graphically exposed in the case of the new town in east Devon, but the policy has grave implications for the London area. There could be a tendency to allow development all the way to the M25. We already see development around the M25 and it is but a short step to take it even further into the countryside beyond.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to live up to their rhetoric and pay much more attention to urban renaissance. There is a great deal of talk about it, although how it is to be achieved is not explained. At the same time, there is talk—this is the contradictory aspect—of more infilling, more use of derelict land and more use of compulsory purchase powers, which always gets me worried. Socialist local authorities in London have used those powers in a malign fashion more for social and political engineering than for creating communities in which there is a good balance of open space and housing. If we put all that together, there is a real danger that the urban renaissance envisaged by the Government will not provide the quality of life which they claim is so important in their planning document.
For Londoners, the preservation of metropolitan green belt is of immense importance. No other tract of green belt is more under pressure. I urge the Government to realise that there is green belt not only outside the M25 and around Greater London, but within it—the Harefield ward in my constituency has the greatest amount of green belt in the capital. The green belt contains not only sites

of special scientific interest or nature reserves such as Ruislip woods, but other sites: some may be inferior countryside, but they are important to the balance between the town and rural England. They are the green lung on which our communities depend.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a good debate. Some Opposition Members, including Ministers, have made the criticism that this is the fifth such debate that the Opposition have called. I have some bad news for Ministers. There will be more of these debates. We will keep dragging them to the House so that they can explain the fiasco.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: In a minute. I should like to get through my first paragraph or so.
The Government have finally produced draft PPG3 and the revised household projections, but they have dithered and delayed for two years before so doing. That means that we have to look forward to see what the prospects of the Government's policies working are and backwards to see what damage has already been done by their drift and inaction. All that the Minister could do was stagger from meaningless slogan to meaningless slogan.
The way in which the revised household projections have been handled is particularly curious. Only last year, a Select Committee described the previous estimate of 4.4 million as
the best one there is.
At last September's party conference, the Minister for London and Construction said that all previous estimates of household figures had fallen short of the actual number of households. Until fairly recently, unnamed Ministers were hinting that the figure of 4.4 million was, if anything, on the low side and numbers such as 5 million or even 5.5 million were muttered darkly. Then the new thinking was rushed out at about the same time as PPG3, but without the detailed data which have been promised for later in the year. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made a brave, but doomed, effort to defend the figures.
What of the figures themselves? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) spoke with his usual authority on the issue. I am sure that the Minister accepts that small variations in underlying assumptions such as interest rates and GDP could make a dramatic difference to the projections. I understand that the figures make no allowance for economic factors. The Minister for London and Construction is looking at me as though I am telling him something new.
We have already heard about the shameful decisions made in Stevenage, West Sussex, Newcastle and Sutton Coldfield. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that two new towns are being dropped in the middle of east Devon. Will Ministers now reverse all or some of those decisions? It seems that, if the figures are correct, they were based on outdated information.
We have heard how county structure plans have been forced through on the basis of the old PPG3. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out that,


in the south-east, 800,000 of the 900,000 houses planned between 1991 and 2016 have already been built, or sites have been earmarked for them.
What of the future? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) eloquently said, it is a crying shame that the Government did not take this opportunity to increase their target for brown-field development. The revised estimate of 3.8 million homes means that the Government are planning to build 2.3 million homes on previously developed land. Even with the Government's new projections, a 60 per cent. target for new brown-field development would still mean that 1.5 million homes were built on green-field sites. If they meant what they said before, the Government could still build 2.6 million homes on brown-field sites, so that only 1.2 million would need to be placed on land not previously developed. [Interruption.] I wish that, instead of keeping up a running commentary on my speech, Ministers would address these genuine problems.
The plain fact is that, even with the reduced household projections, there will be a one-fifth increase in new households in England over 25 years. On the Government's own target, which they are failing— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must be quiet. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.

Mr. Waterson: On the Government's own target, which—incidentally—they are failing to meet, at least 40 per cent. of new development will be on green-field sites. In his opening speech, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning wholly failed to address that point. When his colleague the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, the Government will have a second chance to respond to the points that we have made and to take up the cry from the Opposition and from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).
The chairman of Countryside Properties has claimed that 40 per cent. of household growth will take place in the south-east, which has only 11 per cent. of the brown-field sites—a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). It is estimated that, during the past five years, 300,000 acres of meadows and grassland have disappeared—an area roughly the size of Bedfordshire—yet, at any one time, about 750,000 homes lie empty in England and Wales.
PPG3 sets much store by urban extensions. Will the existing infrastructure be able to cope? Will not some of those developments, designed to reduce green-field development, actually encroach on the green belt—a point made powerfully in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). After all, the Government have already proved by their actions that they regard the green belt as a pretty elastic concept.
Substantial costs can be inherent in brown-field sites. Who will bear them? Who will spend money on testing the viability of sites, dealing with such issues as contamination? The Government will not do so—why should developers? Have local authorities the money to do so? The Local Government Association has already pointed out that an extra burden will be imposed on

planning authorities resulting from the sequential approach, and that councils will have to "jump through hoops" to show that a particular proposal is unsustainable. However, the household projections appear to assume that the Government's much-vaunted policy for urban renaissance will fail, and that the exodus from our cities will continue. I should like the Minister to deal with that point specifically. Will he also confirm that his projections only show migration 15 years ahead?
Finally, where does social housing fit into that agenda? We heard about that from the hon. Members for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). The Secretary of State told Housing Today that he did not know what proportion of the new households were likely to need social housing. He lamely said:
That's an area of housing policy that depends on a great deal of policies that we are currently looking at.
We all know that the right hon. Gentleman has a way with words. No doubt he had in mind the current review of housing benefit, which is causing such concern—especially for housing associations and those who provide them with private finance. The Under-Secretary's views may be no more reliable, because the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee referred to his evidence on the provision of social housing as "vacuous and disingenuous".
Shelter points out that the new projections do not take account of existing need. The figures for the south-east seem to mask actual cuts in social housing. As we all know, there is already a serious regional mismatch in social housing; internal migration will only make a bad situation worse. The latest projections show that the drift from north to south is accelerating. The National Housing Federation estimates that 95,000 affordable homes will be needed each year between 2001 and 2016. The federation contends that there is an existing backlog of 600,000 homes and that 40 per cent. of the new households will be on low incomes—that is the key point. What price social exclusion now?
It is difficult to avoid the sad fact that, in planning and housing matters, far from having joined-up government, we have a Government who can only be described as dysfunctional. I ask the House to support the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The danger in any debate is that it may generate more heat than light. Some of that heat may come from the perfectly legitimate desire of hon. Members to pursue issues on behalf of their constituents. Sadly, however, some heat comes in the form of hot air generated solely to make party political points. There has been rather too much of that today from Opposition Members, especially those on the Front Bench. There has not been much informed debate.
On a subject as important as the future of housing and the shape of our towns, cities and countryside in the future, it is important that we remain focused on the real issues. That is what the Government are trying to do. At the start of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning reiterated our firm policies on housing and the green belt. He described our achievements to date in addressing the challenges posed by household growth. Hon. Members have raised


points in this debate to which I shall try to respond, but I also want to look ahead to the further action that we have in hand.
Most important is carrying forward the new planning policy guidance on housing—PPG3—which was issued recently. I am pleased to tell the House that it was broadly welcomed by everyone who has thought seriously about how we can reconcile many of the difficult issues that must be reconciled if we are to provide for the housing needs of our country, while protecting and respecting our countryside. At present, PPG3 is out for consultation. It sets out how we should try to determine the location of new housing, and the priority that should be given to using existing developed sites and existing housing stock in urban areas—encouraging recycling of previously developed land. It underlines very clearly our desire to ensure that encroachment on green-field sites is kept to a minimum.
That is reinforced by our national target, which is that 60 per cent. of new housing is to be on previously developed land, or provided through conversions, over the next 10 years. We hope that it will be possible to better that target both nationally and, where possible, regionally. In contrast to the Opposition, we do not pluck figures out of thin air and hope to be able to deliver them. When we set targets, we aim to deliver them. When we give pledges, or manifesto commitments, we deliver them. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives and that is why Labour is the party of government and the Conservatives are the party of opposition.

Mr. Gray: Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for the Minister to tell us why he told Planning Week that a 60 per cent. target would be a "recipe for disaster" and that there was "absolutely no doubt" that the only realistic way to meet the housing figure was to develop new towns and settlements. Why did he say that to Planning Week in 1997? Apparently, he did not believe it.

Mr. Raynsford: No, I do believe it. The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening during the previous debate on this subject two months ago. At that time, I responded to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends by explaining that that figure was plucked out of thin air by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, at the very tail end of a Conservative Government who were limping towards defeat and were trying to pull something out of the hat. We did not believe that it was right or responsible for a Government who had devastated the countryside by allowing development to offer death-bed repentances by plucking out of thin air figures that had no justification. We have carried out a serious analysis of what is feasible. We did not commit ourselves to the 60 per cent. target until we were sure that it could be delivered. That is the difference between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition.
Another key issue, to which the Opposition should listen, is the establishment of the new national land use database. Believe it or not, until now—despite the 18 years during which the Conservatives were in power—there has been no consistent system for recording and making use of information about land in urban areas that might be available for redevelopment. The Conservatives talked about it, but they did nothing

about it. The Labour Government—[Interruption.]— I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones).

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: On behalf of my constituents, I take this opportunity to say that I welcome the Government's proposals. I know that all my constituents welcome the fact that the Government will build on brown-field sites instead of on green-field sites.

Mr. Raynsford: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment and, above all, I welcome her back to the Chamber. I am delighted that, at the first opportunity, she is back here speaking for her constituents.
I was explaining that, in contrast to the previous Government, the Labour Government were acting to identify the scope for urban regeneration. The first phase of the new national land use database will come on stream in the very near future. I expect that to be a most important tool for local authorities. In the longer term, the Government intend to expand and maintain the database to cover all land and uses of land, and for it to be publicly accessible.
However much new development is put into existing towns and cities, consistent with sustainable development objectives and the aim of making our urban areas better places to live, it is a plain fact that some new development must be on green-field sites. Indeed, some green-field development is essential to breathe new life into certain communities, especially in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) was right to stress the importance of appropriate housing, especially social housing developments, in certain rural communities which will die without that provision. We have to get the balance right and assist opportunities for sustainable development and for meeting social and economic needs in rural communities. It is vital that new development is of the right type, in the right place and on the right scale, which is why we place such emphasis on developments being sustainable.

Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No. The hon. Lady spoke in the debate and I dealt with her points earlier.
Getting development in the right location lies at the heart of planning policy for transport. In the next few months, we shall consult on a revised draft of PPG13. That will complement the objectives, set out in our White Paper on the future of transport, of reducing congestion and pollution and promoting an approach that locates development where it is accessible by a choice of means, including public transport, so reducing reliance on the private car.
There is a range of options for meeting development needs that cannot be met within existing urban areas. One of the most sustainable patterns of such new development may be in urban extensions, especially where they would take advantage of the existing under-utilised infrastructure, especially transport and other vital services. That inevitably creates a tension. That tension was considered, but not resolved, by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. In its report,


the Committee endorsed the preference for urban extensions, but, in a separate recommendation, sought to maintain inner green belt boundaries unchanged.
There is a real tension in that respect, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) emphasised. We have tried to address that tension in PPG3 by making it clear that, in certain cases where it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green-belt boundaries. However, that must be the exception to the rule. It must not be undertaken for any other reason and the presumption must normally be against development in the green belt. The Government are trying to be responsible in facing up to the difficult issues thrown up by the development challenge, especially in areas such as Cambridge and Cambridgeshire where, for good economic reasons, there is great pressure to meet the needs of the burgeoning economy and to provide more accommodation for the people who work in the area.

Mr. Lansley: I do not invite the Minister to comment on the particular circumstances of Cambridge, but ask him to note that we are not talking exclusively about the sustainability of the area or the availability of a public transport corridor. The simple fact is that the Cambridge green belt is one of those green belts that are designed to protect the unique setting of an historic city. It would be wrong to disregard that important aspect of green belts.

Mr. Raynsford: I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point. I should point out that the alternative promoted by some, which is to leap-frog the green belt and develop new settlements beyond it, might have other disadvantages, such as generation of increased traffic. That is why I stress that the issue is a difficult one that does not lend itself to glib answers. It must be considered seriously and rigorously and we must be conscious of the whole range of issues, including the protection of the countryside and sustainability, when seeking solutions. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot say more about the specific case that he raises.

Mr. Waterson: I agree that the issue is important, but does the Minister accept that, by making an exception of one difficult case, he sets a planning precedent that might be used in respect of other encroachments in the green belt?

Mr. Raynsford: I am highly conscious of the fact that any message to the effect that the Government are relaxing green belt policy would be disastrous, and we are sending no such message. We have no intention of encouraging inappropriate development in the green belt, and we certainly do not wish to emulate the previous Government's record. In their last year in office, the Conservative Government released for development more than 700 hectares of green belt; and released on appeal—on the Secretary of State's own decision—500 further hectares of green belt.
We have a responsibility both to those who are inadequately housed and to the next generation, many of whom have already been born, to provide the framework to enable an adequate supply of good-quality housing; but housing is not an isolated human need. The people who

live in those houses need access to a range of employment opportunities, good-quality services and other facilities. We want new development to be well designed and to accord in its own right with sustainable development principles, such as accessibility by a choice of means of transport which allow less reliance on the motor car.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made an entirely unfounded allegation that the Government were not serious about urban design. Nothing could be further from the truth: we have laid enormous emphasis on urban design, not only through the guidance that we have issued or the speeches that we have made, but through practical action. Measures such as the designation of new millennium villages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) described, are part of our positive efforts to encourage and promote the highest quality design in new developments, so as to demonstrate what can be done. We also have a responsibility to preserve the countryside, and we are determined to maintain our efforts in that respect in the years ahead.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seemed wholly confused about the figures, as did several other hon. Members. The Opposition motion reveals that confusion by referring to the Government's
failure to meet even their own targets for new building on brownfield sites".
The most recent figures available on development on green-field sites compared with brown-field sites relate to 1996. Anyone with the slightest political knowledge will know that that was not a year in which the Labour party was in office; therefore, the record is that of the previous Government. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman made such an elementary mistake.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the Government bullying Devon. As I pointed out, it is some bullying when the Government allow the county council 7,200 fewer homes than the previous Government, of whom she was a member, wanted to impose on it.

Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked why, if the projected figure was now 3.8 million rather than 4.4 million, the 60 per cent. target could not be increased to 70 per cent. That implies a rather mechanistic view, reminiscent of predict and provide. We do not go straight from projections to household figures—that would be predict and provide. Instead, we intend to interpret the figures carefully and allow the regional authorities to do so as well.
I repeat: we want to do the best that can be achieved, and the targets that we have set are demanding. The 60 per cent. target will be difficult to deliver: the previous Government did not get anywhere close to it—their record was abominable—but we intend to get as close as possible. We shall be prudent and set targets that we believe can be reached. We are determined to deliver on those targets, and we shall try to exceed them if possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) revealed why he is such a valued member of the Environment, Transport and Regional


Affairs Committee when he identified exactly the kinds of principles that are important in achieving sustainable development objectives. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has done much to protect the green belt—and many hon. Members on both sides of the House respect him for that—seemed, surprisingly, not to be keen on transport corridors. I understand his concerns, but I put it to him that there is simply no alternative if we are to ensure sustainable development without allowing sprawl into the countryside, which would be a serious mistake.
This debate has not done the official Opposition any credit. They are currently in apologise-and-move-on mode, but today they did not even reach the point of apologising. I put it to the Conservatives that, until they apologise for their appalling record in government, they will have no chance of being anything other than the Trotskyist sect of which my hon. Friend the Member for Test said they were reminiscent. What a contribution!

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 288.

Division No. 158]
[4 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gray, James


Amess, David
Green, Damian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bercow, John
Hammond, Philip


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jenkin, Bernard


Brady, Graham
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Browning, Mrs Angela
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burns, Simon
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


(Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Major, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Malins, Humfrey


& Howden)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
St Aubyn, Nick





Shepherd, Richard
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wardle, Charles


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Syms, Robert
Woodward, Shaun


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cotter, Brian


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Allen, Graham
Crausby, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Austin, John
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dawson, Hilton


Benton, Joe
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blackman, Liz
Denham, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dismore, Andrew


Blizzard, Bob
Dobbin, Jim


Borrow, David
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradshaw, Ben
Doran, Frank


Brake, Tom
Dowd, Jim


Breed, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Burgon, Colin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Efford, Clive


Cable, Dr Vincent
Ennis, Jeff


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Follett, Barbara


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Casale, Roger
Galloway, George


Caton, Martin
Gapes, Mike


Cawsey, Ian
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coaker, Vernon
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Grogan, John


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Colman, Tony
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Connarty, Michael
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cooper, Yvette
Healey, John


Corbett, Robin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John



Hesford, Stephen






Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McWalter, Tony


Hill, Keith
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hinchliffe, David
Mallaber, Judy


Hoey, Kate
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hope, Phil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Martlew, Eric


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Maxton, John


Hoyle, Lindsay
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Humble, Mrs Joan
Meale, Alan


Hutton, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Miller, Andrew


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moffatt, Laura


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jamieson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jenkins, Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mountford, Kali


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Mudie, George


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keetch, Paul
O'Hara, Eddie


Kelly, Ms Ruth
O'Neill, Martin


Kemp, Fraser
Organ, Mrs Diana


Khabra, Piara S
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kidney, David
Pearson, Ian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pendry, Tom


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pickthall, Colin


Kirkwood, Archy
Pike, Peter L


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Plaskitt, James


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pollard, Kerry


Laxton, Bob
Pond, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Pope, Greg


Levitt, Tom
Pound, Stephen


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Linton, Martin
Primarolo, Dawn


Livingstone, Ken
Prosser, Gwyn


Lock, David
Purchase, Ken


Love, Andrew
Radice, Giles


McAvoy, Thomas
Rammell, Bill


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Raynsford, Nick


(Makerfield)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McDonnell, John
Rendel, David


McIsaac, Shona
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McNulty, Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Rowlands, Ted





Roy, Frank
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Ruddock, Joan
Stunell, Andrew


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Ryan, Ms Joan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Salter, Martin
(Dewsbury)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Savidge, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Sawford, Phil
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Shaw, Jonathan
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Twigg, Derek(Halton)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Wills, Michael


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winnick, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Stevenson, George
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wyatt, Derek


Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance, and maintaining tight planning controls over the Green Belt and other designated green spaces; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach is helping to achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of new housing on previously-developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid-1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the benefits of replacing the previous "predict and provide" approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible "plan, monitor and manage" system; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas.

Industry and Employment

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to the next debate. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members should be quiet in the Chamber, and the House must come to order. Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the way the Government is making it too dear to make things in Britain; condemns the tax increases, increases in regulation and the poor climate for industry brought about by present policies; highlights the factory closures and 250,000 forecast job losses feared by the trade unions; condemns the New Deal for young people, which has failed to reduce youth unemployment, has disappointed employers and requires radical change if it is to stop wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers' money; and recommends a change of policy to avoid a prolonged and damaging industrial collapse and consequent rising industrial unemployment.
The House will be aware that I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I am not speaking on behalf of those businesses or at their request; I speak on behalf of all British business and industry.
In our motion, we say that we regret the way in which the Government are making it too dear to make things in Britain. We condemn the tax increases, the increases in regulation and the poor climate for industry brought about by the Government's policies. We highlight the factory closures and the 250,000 jobs that the trade unions forecast will be lost from industry in the months ahead. We condemn the new deal for young people, which has failed to reduce youth unemployment. Indeed, that figure is now falling less quickly than it was under the successful Conservative policies that the Government ditched. The scheme now needs radical change to avoid more damage being done and more money being wasted. I ask the House to forbear on the new deal because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who will wind up the debate, will put the full case on the new deal.
I want to do justice to the parlous plight that industry faces. The debate is particularly timely because I have learned grave news from the north-east which the House should know and discuss as it breaks. We have heard this afternoon that Siemens, which so recently closed a microchip plant in the north-east, is about to open a new microchip facility near Paris. I hope that the Government will now apologise for misleading the House, the constituents of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and those of the Prime Minister.
When the closure was announced, the Government were categoric and said, "The work is not going elsewhere because there are no types of microchip that can be made in the north-east that we can secure. The market is saturated. It is a world problem; it is nothing to do with Britain." Already this afternoon, trade unionists, workers and people who have been sacked from Siemens in the north-east have gone on record saying that they have the building, the skills, the people and the wish to succeed, and they would like the chance to make the microchips that will be made near Paris. They cannot do that because they have a Labour Government, who have priced them out of the market and whose policies have done terrible damage to the Secretary of State' s constituents. Day after day, week after week. more factories close and more jobs

are lost. Now that problem is in the Secretary of State's backyard, and we have caught the Government misleading the House and the public.

Mr. Alan Campbell: Siemens is in my constituency. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company decided, last summer, to withdraw from north Tyneside because of its failure to develop a joint venture, as most microchip plants around the world have done, to guarantee a market for that product? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in a statement last summer, Siemens explained that its decision to pull out of north Tyneside had nothing to do with the Government's policies but was due to the collapse of the microchip market in the far east, which meant that the joint venture destined to come to north Tyneside went to the far east?

Mr. Redwood: What a wriggle! However, the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my case. He says that a joint venture went to the far east, and I was saying that it is too dear to make things in Britain because of the Government's policies, so companies are going elsewhere. We now learn that an important new facility will be located in Paris, which is much closer to home and is an area with which we ought to be able to compete. Why cannot we compete with Paris? Because the Government's policies have priced us out of the market. Their taxes, their regulations, their exchange rate and their interest rate are all that we forecast, and, unfortunately, our forecasts have come true. I do not want British industry to be destroyed, but I said that it would happen, and it is happening.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Let us have some facts, rather than the prejudice on which the right hon. Gentleman's statements have been based. Will he confirm that Siemens's decision was to set up a joint venture with a company that is already located just outside Paris? Will he confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), in whose constituency Siemens is based, that the company was unable to find a joint venture in north Tyneside for the simple reason that potential partnerships were already located on the continent?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now start to address the real issues of the Siemens case, rather than relying on prejudice? Prejudice will not help people in the north-east of England and, more importantly, it says more about his failure to lead for the Conservative party on trade and industry matters than anything else.

Mr. Redwood: That last criticism was wide of the mark and revealed how desperate the Secretary of State has become. The people whom he represents, the constituents of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and I know that there is a new, purpose-built facility sitting empty in the north-east of England. They know that Siemens was committed to that region because of Conservative policies and is now pulling out under Labour policies. They know that Siemens had a Government grant, which it welcomed, but it does not now think that the grant is sufficient to make up for the cost burden in Britain. They know that if, Siemens wanted to launch a joint venture, it could be done, because the work force, the factory and the


Government grant are available—all the conditions needed, except for an exchange rate, an interest rate and a set of Government policies that make sense.
The Secretary of State must understand that a competitive devaluation is under way from the continent of Europe. We are getting the thin end of the wedge on that, and the Government's policies have made Britain the centre for closure, and France and Germany the centre for those new developments.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I willingly give way to the rest of the Government.

Mr. Keetch: Liberal Democrat Members are deeply sorry that Siemens is going. In the right hon. Gentleman's perception, what is the reason that Siemens is relocating in France instead of coming to Britain? Is it the fact that France is joining economic and monetary union or the fact that France has high social costs, as he would perceive them?

Mr. Redwood: I have explained that the competitive devaluation of the euro—therefore, France's membership of EMU—allied to the high-cost policies being followed by the British Government, obviously lie behind the switch. The numbers do not add up in the north-east, thanks to the Government. They do add up, relatively, in Paris because of the change of exchange rate and the extra costs in Britain.
We have said that, at some point, Britain would have imported enough of the high costs from the continent to make such a switch all too likely. We have now reached that point.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that he has just relayed to the House is especially grave in the light of the fact that there have been 7,500 reported job losses in the north and north-east of England since July 1998, and that, in the first three months of this year, there has been a 29 per cent. increase in business bankruptcies in the north-east—the area represented by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was hoping to mention later the way in which the disaster has been spreading throughout the north-east region. Siemens is just the biggest and best-known closure, but there have been many others.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has yet seen the May edition of "CBI News"—which contains a smiling picture of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It says that costs of £4.6 billion extra have been imposed on industry simply as a result of the working time directive and the minimum wage, before we get into all the other legislation that takes effect from 1 April. That figure of £4.6 billion is the Department of Trade and Industry's own figure.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend and many of my Back-Bench colleagues have consistently warned that

even well-intentioned legislation can do grave damage. I am sure that the Government meant well by the minimum wage legislation but, unfortunately, it is not much good having wage protection if one loses one's job as a result. That is happening to too many workers.

Mr. Bill Rammell: What possible logical consistency is there between the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that companies are transferring to France at the moment because of additional on-costs, and the argument that he usually uses—that we should resist further integration within the European Union because of other countries' uncompetitive situation with regard to social on-costs?

Mr. Redwood: Those are entirely consistent propositions. I am saying that, if we had stayed with the level of social on-costs under the Conservatives and the level of exchange rate that we then had, we would be more competitive. We were very competitive then. Investment came here; it did not go to the continent. During the past two years, we have warned that, if the pound were allowed to go too high and the euro too low, and if too many of the additional costs that continental countries already enjoyed were imported into this country, a point might come at which a switch-over would begin. We are now witnessing the start of that switch-over.
If the Government simply heap on more costs, more regulations and more taxes, the switch will get worse. There will be more closures. If they allow the pound to rise further and keep a high pound and high interest rates, more factories will close. More companies will move to the continent. That is the way it works.
The Secretary of State says that he believes in putting wealth creation before wealth distribution. I should like to see some evidence of that. He says that he has understood the free enterprise revolution launched successfully by the Conservatives in the 1980s, but he does not seem to have a clue how markets work, and he and his right hon. Friends seem to be amazed when Siemens pulls out of this country and sets up in Paris.
Indeed, I have the words of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who, when I said that I feared that the closure of the Siemens plant on north Tyneside meant that business was being diverted elsewhere, said that it had nothing to do with conditions in Britain. He said that the Siemens management had cited the collapse of the world market in semiconductor products. He said that that was the only reason for the closure, and that one would not see that work, or work like it, being done elsewhere; the work had gone completely. Now, a different type of chip, which can be made in Britain, will be made near Paris, when the Secretary of State's local work force would love to have the chance to do so.
If the Secretary of State will not take my views seriously, I hope that he will take seriously the views that the local Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union official expressed when he said today:
this is an insult to the people of Tyneside
and that Siemens should return and use the superb factory that it has. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet him and his friends and colleagues and try to do something about it at this late stage. There must be a change of policy, which might start to change the mind of industry about Britain.


Our charge, this afternoon, is that the Government do not care about industry. They say that they do, but everything that they do makes industry's plight worse. They put interest rates up too high, making it too dear to borrow money to expand a business. They put the pound up and kept it up, making it too dear to export. They passed huge increases in business taxes, making it too dear to make things in Britain, taking money out of business that could have been used to create new jobs. They have heaped regulation on top of regulation, making it too dear to employ people in some places in Britain.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Such as?

Mr. Redwood: Hon. Members ask, "Such as?" The minimum wage, the working time directive and employment relations legislation are all increasing costs.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: We have heard many accusations this afternoon, some of them totally unbelievable. I would love to see the right hon. Gentleman's diary, so that I could check which companies he talks to, because when I meet representatives of the leading companies, they all tell me that this is still the best country to invest in and to do business in, and that they like the environment that the Government have created.
The right hon. Gentleman is very slippery about many of these things, but will he answer one question? If the Conservatives ever returned to power, would they abolish the minimum wage?

Mr. Redwood: I have endlessly stated a very clear position. We oppose the national minimum wage. We urged the Government not to do it. We will set out the measures that we intend to repeal in the next Parliament when we launch our manifesto. I have also made it crystal clear that there are several ways of dealing with the damage to jobs done by the minimum wage. It could be repealed, or it could be frozen—one could limit the damage by not increasing it, instead of destroying more jobs.
What are the Government going to do about the minimum wage? Will they increase it by wages, by prices or not at all? Will they increase it annually, semi-annually or biannually?

Mr. Byers: Does the shadow Trade Secretary disagree with the shadow Chancellor that a Tory Government would put the minimum wage on hold?

Mr. Redwood: We have stated exactly the same policy—that we shall announce our clear intentions for the next Parliament on the eve of that Parliament, when we are fighting a general election about it. Both the shadow Chancellor and I opposed the introduction of the minimum wage and warned that it would do damage. We take no joy in seeing the damage that it is doing. We take no joy in seeing the fiddles that are limiting the damage—there are now lots of ways round it, because the legislation was so badly drafted. However, we must return to the attack today, when we see industry in chaos and crisis under the Government.

Judy Mallaber: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman said that, if the Opposition ever got back

into government, they would either repeal or freeze the minimum wage. Can he confirm that he is considering those two options only?

Mr. Redwood: No. I am considering a range of options, but I want to take the advice of the policy group that I am forming, and I wish to hear the views of business. Having listened, I will announce our policy at the time of the publication of the manifesto. However, we are in no doubt that the national minimum wage is damaging, and we strongly oppose it. We urge the Government to do something, even at this late stage, about the damage that they are creating.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Labour Members do not seem to have a clue as to the damage that the minimum wage is doing to small rural businesses. I am in correspondence with a small accountant in the town of Ellesmere, who handles the accounts of small businesses, who has specifically asked me take up the problems that the minimum wage is bringing to those businesses, which cannot pass on the extra costs to their customers and will simply lay off their work force.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his heartfelt advice, which reflects the advice that we are getting from all round the country through my hon. Friends and direct from British business.
When the Government are challenged about the factory closures that happen day after day, all that we are offered is a new spin. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) asked me which companies I talk to. Is he aware of the closures that have been announced by the Co-op, by Siemens and by Rover-BMW? Textiles, steel or cars—the story is the same in every industry: either mass sackings or complete factory closures.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Following on from the points that have been made about setting exchange rates and interest rates, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the official position of Her Majesty's Opposition is that the independence of the Bank of England will be abolished, as will the new deal? What is the probability of those policies changing next week in the light of a new statement by the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy?

Mr. Redwood: Labour Members really are rattled, if that is the best that they can do. Conservative Members have opposed each of the policies identified by the hon. Gentleman. We are the Opposition; it is our duty to say either that we can live with a policy, and perhaps be quiet about it, or that a policy is outrageous and we oppose it tooth and nail. We have opposed the policies that have been referred to today. That is our official position, and we think that the country would be better off without the minimum wage and without an independent central bank in its current shape.

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members appreciate that it is the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to oppose. If this is such a serious matter, will there be a better vote at 7 o'clock than there was at 4 o'clock, when—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order; it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Redwood: That point of order was particularly bizarre, because I have been giving way to Labour


Members and would have been happy to take that point of debate as well. Some Conservative Members will be out meeting the electors; important elections are coming up and we want to maximise the vote against the Government because of the damage that they are clearly doing to jobs and to business. On each of those policy areas, we will give our view nearer the time of the next Parliament. Our clear view now is, "Don't do it, or rescind it."

Mr. John Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how sick it makes people in such areas as South Yorkshire to hear him make accusations about Government policies causing job losses? Is he aware that 12,500 people were employed in metalworking manufacturing in Rotherham in 1979? After two recessions, and 15 years later, fewer than one in five of those jobs were left. There were 12 working pits in Rotherham in 1981. Now there is one. Is he aware that unemployment in Rotherham peaked at 23.5 per cent. when the previous Administration were in office?

Mr. Redwood: The fact that people lost their jobs in a recession under the Conservatives does not mean that it is right for people to lose their jobs today under a Labour Government. The Government came to power promising something better. We have already agreed that the loss of jobs in the recession that took place under the Conservatives was a great tragedy; people wanted something better, but they are not getting it—they are getting something worse.
Instead of jobs in older industries going, jobs in new industries are going. Jobs in a state-of-the-art microchip plant are going, only to spring up, not so far away, in Paris, and the Minister concerned says that that is nothing to do with Britain's competitiveness against the continent, but everything to do with the world slump. I call that misleading the public and I want an apology.

Mr. Rammell: The right hon. Gentleman recites a litany of alleged crimes, but has he read any of the articles in the informed financial press this week, all of which suggest that, for the first time in a generation and within the downturn of an economic cycle, this country will avoid going into recession? Can he explain why that is happening?

Mr. Redwood: The American economy is performing extremely well, which is helping some service sectors and, in particular, the economy of the south of Britain. I am grateful that that is happening. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to the debates over the past two years, he would have known that, on behalf of the Opposition, I have consistently predicted a sharp and unpleasant industrial recession, but have never predicted a general recession.
I thought that we would have a two-tier economy; I thought that conditions would be all right for those who mend software, but not for those who make textiles. Unfortunately, we are seeing exactly that pattern. Terrible damage is being done in the industrial heartlands, which tend to be represented by Labour Members, but areas such as my own, which are much more dependent on hi-tech

businesses, are not doing so badly. Even in my constituency, however, there have been two very unpleasant engineering closures in the past month.

Kali Mountford: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to textiles. Is he ready to apologise for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in west Yorkshire under his Administration? Constituencies that were entirely dependent on textiles now have not one textile job left.

Mr. Redwood: We have dealt with those matters endlessly during our debates and I see no need to repeat all that I have said in the past. We are moving on and drawing attention to the present and to the future. I can tell the hon. Lady that that is what the electorate are interested in. They want to know what the Government are going to do, how their jobs will be secured or improved today and what will happen when they lose their jobs. They are no longer raking over the coals of 10 years ago; they want to know about the present and the future.
All that we ever get from the Government is new spin. Our charge is that fine words are no substitute for right actions from a Government. Business cannot sell more abroad because the Government say, "The pound is fine for you." Business cannot employ more people because the Government say that they believe in deregulation, but they have to achieve it, otherwise the jobs will not be available.
Industry cannot make a profit because the Government say that they believe in lower taxes, but they have to implement lower taxes so that there is more profit to keep and spend on other things. The bottom line is that most companies are under pressure from the Government's actions, and no amount of fine words can put that right. Those in government have to will the means as well as will the ends.
We have a Government of self-appointed saints and spinners. There is no public hint of self-doubt, and no suggestion that they might be wrong and that industry might be right. Industry has been warning for months that it is too difficult to make things in Britain. Why will the Government not listen and do something about that?
The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, did nothing to help industry; I see that he is so uninterested in it that he has not come to listen to the debate. He lived in a state of original spin. The present Secretary of State has done nothing to help industry either, but he lives in a state of unoriginal spin. Most of his spin is inherited from his predecessor.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State admitted to me last week, in front of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, that the Government had not "got it right" on regulation? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute outrage that, only this week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, told me in a parliamentary answer that the Government do not publish, and do not even intend to publish, an annual statement of the costs of regulation on British business? Does that not show how little the Government care about the problems they cause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to Back Benchers to make interventions brief. The hon. Member


for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not the only Member who is guilty; other interventions have been far too long. Interventions must be brief, and they have not been brief by my standards.

Mr. Redwood: As always, I am happy to take interventions. Many hon. Members would like to speak in the debate, and I have other remarks to make. Perhaps hon. Members will bear that in mind when they try to intervene.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and pay tribute on the Floor of the House to the Bill that he introduced to the House earlier this week. His Bill tries to do something about the problems of manufacturing and other industries and I recommend it to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State says that he wants a new consensus and believes in parties of good will helping enterprise. He says that he is a deregulator; my hon. Friend has done the work for him by giving him the very Bill that would solve some of his problems. I look forward to the Secretary of State graciously accepting it. I should be happy for him to amend it—I am sure that it could be improved—and we would give it a fair wind. I would not bring the Conservative army in to try to vote it down; I would come to the House to praise it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh at the idea of the Tory army's voting things down should remember that they lost two votes on a crucial Bill on the fair conduct of referendums not so many days ago. We look forward to doing the same when the need and the opportunity arise.
I warn the Secretary of State, who knows that his Government have lost two votes on a crucial issue, that the mood of business is turning against the Government. When the Government say that they care about industry, industrialists ask why, in that case, they are being crippled by the high level of the pound. When the Government say that they believe in deregulation, business asks why, in that case, the Government have introduced the minimum wage, the social chapter, the 48-hour working week and many new regulatory bodies. When the Government say that they are keeping taxes down, and occasionally cutting tax rates, business points out that the cost of taxation has risen massively. That is what matters—how much business is actually paying, rather than one or two particular rates of tax in special cases.
When the Government say that they want more savings and investment, the Opposition ask why the Government singled out pensions for penal taxation, and why the savings rate is plummeting under the current regime. When the Government say that more jobs are being created, all those who have recently been thrown out of their industrial jobs ask whether the Government have noticed that, and whether they care. When the Government say that they have now rescued Rover, we ask whose policies undermined it in the first place. In the last year of Conservative government, BMW came here and bought Rover. It was profitable, and BMW said that it was going ahead with a major investment programme. Under Labour, the losses built up and the thing turned around in the wrong direction. Under Labour, a rescue operation had to be announced.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how much has been offered to BMW to secure that investment—which, of course, we welcomed? Will he also assure us that he had

clearance from Brussels before signing the deal, and that there is no chance of jobs' being jeopardised or lost at the last minute as a result of European Union intervention following an agreement between the Secretary of State, the company and all the other parties concerned? Those are important questions, to which we and the Longbridge work force need answers.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend, who is making an important point, will know that the discredited—in a collective sense—Commissioner van Miert seems to want to instigate an investigation of the disbursement of some £150 million of Government aid to BMW-Rover. Surely the United Kingdom has a pretty good record, or did have until the present Government came to power. Industrial subsidies to manufacturing industry in Italy are six times as high as those in the United Kingdom, and those in Germany are four times as high. Has not the European Union got a cheek?

Mr. Redwood: Of course I hope that the deal will go through and that jobs will be saved, but I condemn the level of support that has had to be given to secure those jobs. I blame the Government for that. I am delighted that we have a deal. Of course money had to be offered, because industry has been damaged so badly by the Government's policies; but if BMW-Rover had been making more money, retaining more profit and generating more cash in the United Kingdom, it would not have been necessary to offer so much money to secure the investment.
Now that this has been done, however, we want the jobs as much as the Secretary of State does, and we want no interference by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is right: there are massive industrial subsidies on the continent of Europe which are unfair, and which should be tackled before the rather lesser subsidies in Britain are subjected to scrutiny.
The Secretary of State does not like answering questions. I am almost tempted to ask for the return of the first Secretary of State, or President of the Board of Trade. She did not give away much at the time, but she was positively loquacious in comparison with the present Secretary of State. When I send him letters, either privately or publicly and politically—polite, or a little sharper—he says that he does not answer letters. I have never known a Secretary of State who refuses to answer letters from a parliamentary colleague speaking on behalf of the Opposition, but that is what this Secretary of State does, and I think that the public should know about it.

Mr. Byers: For the record, what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman—as he knows—is that when Parliament is in recess I am more than happy to answer his letters, but when Parliament is sitting I think it a gross discourtesy to the House to put questions in private, in letters, which could be tabled as parliamentary questions. If such questions were tabled, every hon. Member could see them and read the responses.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance, for the protection of Back Benchers. During my 16 years as a Member of Parliament I have written hundreds, maybe thousands, of letters to Ministers. Am I now to be prevented from doing


that because I should be tabling parliamentary questions? That is an absurd notion, and should be stamped on immediately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. How the Secretary of State conducts his affairs is up to him. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Redwood: I urge the Secretary of State to think again about this rather strange new constitutional doctrine. If I write him a letter, I write it because hundreds of thousands, or millions, or people out there share my point of view. I see it as a public duty to show that there is a different view, or a different way forward. There are times when I would like to write the Secretary of State a private letter, but, believe it or not, I care enough about business in this country to want occasionally to use my position, on behalf of business generally, to write to the Secretary of State privately to say, "If I were you, I would pay attention to this and do something about it."
When I was a Minister, if a Labour Member of Parliament—my opposite number, for instance—wrote a private letter, I respected that privacy. If it was a shadow Minister, I would invite him round for a cup of tea so that we could talk through what he had said. That is what the proper parliamentary process is about. If, on occasion, I write a private note and the Secretary of State thinks that I am being too cautious and that what I have said should be made public, I shall be happy for him to ring me up and say, "Let us publish the correspondence." When I write a general or political letter I will publish it anyway, so no discourtesy to the House of Commons is involved. Everyone will see it. I do not mind what the Secretary of State does with his letter, as long as I receive an answer myself.
Under the Conservatives, we followed the traditions of courtesy in this place. If a shadow Minister wrote a letter, it was treated as urgent. We took a personal interest in replying to such letters. If the letter was highly political, we sent a highly political answer; but at least we dealt with the letter there and then. If the letter was written in a different spirit and a different tone—we all know the different tones that are used in our job—it would be answered in a similar tone. We would accept that the shadow Minister had a point, and was speaking for his constituents or in the wider interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members should not order me to get on with it. This is about how industry should present its case, and about whether the Government will listen.[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not get so excited.

Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State's new doctrine is that I must table all the more subtle points in my letters in parliamentary questions. I have tried that once or twice. Let me tell the House what happens in such cases. First, the Department sits on it for a bit. It misses the deadline. Then it decides to shuffle the question over to the Treasury, which decides that it is too difficult to answer—or the person concerned is not allowed to answer because, if he did, the Chancellor would beat him up, or at least

disagree with him. The Treasury then fails to come up with an answer at all. I shall give the House and the Secretary of State an example.
I asked the simple question: what will be the impact on unemployment of a 1 per cent. increase in labour costs? That is not a hugely difficult question that needs rocket science to answer: any Government economic model has such information built into it, and the Secretary of State must have considered such matters before he pushed through the remains of the Government's employment legislation designed to increase wage costs. The previous Government certainly looked into the issue when we considered the sort of ideas that the Government are now producing, and we decided that they would be damaging. The Government must have a view.
The Secretary of State shoved the matter over to the Chancellor. The Chancellor or one of his Ministers replied that it would depend on whether the 1 per cent. increase in wages was matched by productivity. Well, you don't say! That was well worked out. I then tabled a question saying that what I had in mind was a 1 per cent. increase not matched by productivity, which is exactly the type of increase that the Government are forcing on British business. The Government refused to answer. That is a disgrace. This is meant to be open government.
Are Labour's ideas helping to generate more jobs, or are they destroying jobs? That is the big issue. I asked a simple question that goes to the heart of the matter. The Government will not answer it in letters, and they will not answer it from either Department of State. How can they claim to believe in business or open government when they will not answer such a simple point? Perhaps they will argue that one cannot get the staff these days. We do not get much out of the Government for £330 billion: it is all spent on spinning—none of it is spent on answering questions or on proper policy analysis. The Secretary of State is paid money to answer questions. I look forward to getting value for that money when he has had time to reflect on these exchanges.
I enjoyed the recent spat between the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the Secretary of State over the decision on News International and its bid for Manchester United. We have had no opportunity to cross-examine the Secretary of State on that. There has been no statement, although it was a big issue that affected thousands of Manchester United fans and many media businesses in this country and elsewhere.
The Secretary of State consistently told me before the decision that the Government had been entirely neutral, and that he was relying on an independent body outside Government to settle this crucial policy issue. We now learn that the Government submitted advice to the competition authority telling it to turn down the bid. The authority recommended turning it down, and the Secretary of State turned it down. Why did the Secretary of State not tell us that at the beginning? He could have saved the fans all the worry and the trouble of campaigning to try to influence the decision that he and his colleagues had already made. He also put Mr. Murdoch to considerable expense and trouble on the other side of the account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am delighted that the Labour party so dislikes Mr. Murdoch. I am sure that he will be interested to read these exchanges and to learn that his business investment in Britain and his newspapers are not valued by the new Labour party.

The Government gave Mr. Murdoch a slap in the face, and they put the fans through a great deal of unnecessary worry, trouble and uncertainty. If only they had the courage to set out a policy on the relationship between the media and sport, we might have an even more flourishing media and sports industry, more investment and more common working of the kind that must happen one way or another.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Get back to the motion.

Mr. Redwood: Labour Members should read the motion, because it is about the state of British business. [Interruption.] They point at the clock, but they have wasted time by making trivial debating points, whereas we are trying to highlight the damage being done.
I want the Secretary of State to tell us how many shipyards will close. Is he worried that 5,000 jobs are at risk from Kvaerner? What does he intend to do about that? Would it not be the final curtain on Labour's miserable industrial policy if the Govan yard were to close under the Government's economic stewardship? I learn that more bad news is just in: 200 jobs have been lost at Crane Fluid Systems in Ipswich.

Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman loves it.

Mr. Redwood: No, I do not love it; I hate it. I do not want my country to suffer and to do badly. I want the Government to listen to my warnings before another Crane Fluid Systems or another Kvaerner sacks staff and closes shipyards and factories.
The litany of woe from industry is all across the piece. The British Chambers of Commerce has said:
Manufacturers continue to experience a deteriorating sales position at home … The knock on effect of the manufacturing slowdown is being … felt on jobs, the sector's employment figure has slumped to its lowest level for six years".
The "Engineering Trends" survey was equally gloomy. It said:
Total new order intake fell again in the first quarter, having consistently declined since the second quarter of 1998.
It forecasts that more jobs will go. It says:
Labour shedding became prevalent in the second quarter of 1998"—
after the Government came to power. It continues:
Since then the trend has become more emphatic … Employment in the industry is forecast to decline significantly both this year and next.
Let us hope that labour shedding spreads to the electorate on 6 May. An awful lot of Labour votes and Labour councillors should be shed. The British public can pass their judgment on the job losses and the industrial failure that we see all over the place.
The Secretary of State sees mounting unemployment in his own constituency. The Foreign Secretary, having done so much damage to British business by his diplomatic blunders abroad, has had a huge increase in unemployment in his constituency. We now see the damage being done by

the national minimum wage and the 48-hour working week policies. One of the many people who have written to me said that the minimum wage was
great for those who will be receiving it but not so good for my son, and I am sure many more that are being made redundant because their employers cannot or are not prepared to pay it".
The lady continued:
My son was devastated when he was told that he is being made redundant because of it.
It is all very well for Ministers to say that employers are not allowed to do that, but the fact is that employers are doing that because they have no choice. One company was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that it has cut its work force from 50 to 30 to get ready for the minimum wage, which it could not otherwise afford.
All sorts of fiddles and diddles are being developed. Does the Minister know that some temporary employees who expected to get holiday pay are now told that their current rate includes it, and that they can take it or leave it? Does he know that lecturers with annual contracts are now told that they can have only 12-week contracts, so that they are not covered by the law? Does he know that there are so many holes in the policy that it looks like a sieve?
Does the Minister care that Business Strategies has forecast that 80,000 jobs will go because of the minimum wage? Does he know that an organiser for the GMB recently said that, because of the legislation, employees' hours of work are being cut, and that employees are being told to work harder for fewer hours to make the books balance? Another GMB official has said that some employers are making staff pay for their overalls and laundry to offset the minimum wage costs. I am sure that Labour Members did not want those effects, but they are the exact and inevitable consequences of sloppily drafted legislation, which, without those consequences, threatens people with the sack. We now see the emerging loopholes being used in an attempt to offset the job losses that otherwise would occur.
Now, 10 jobs are being lost for every hour of the Labour Government. Jobs are going across the country. If one makes things, one gets clobbered. If one elects a Labour Member, one gets clobbered. If one dares to elect a Labour Cabinet Minister, one gets clobbered particularly hard.
Since November, in Blackburn—which is meant to be looked after by the Home Secretary—unemployment has increased by 248, and many more jobs have gone. In Sheffield, Brightside, which is looked after by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—a little joke there—unemployment has increased by 355, and many more jobs have gone. In Newcastle and Wallsend, which is presided over by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, unemployment has increased by 236. At least the Agriculture Minister is able to tell all the farmers that he is being entirely even-handed—they get the sack, and so do his constituents who work in factories.
Over at the Treasury, Ministers damage themselves as well as others. In Leicester, West, which is presided over by the Economic Secretary, unemployment is up by 349. In Pontefract, where the local Member of Parliament is full of good advice on how to run a successful economy,


unemployment has shot up by 365 since October. I therefore suggest that she should go back to the drawing board.

Yvette Cooper: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for suddenly showing such concern about jobs in my constituency. I hope that he will answer a question on a matter that is very important in that regard. Does he agree with the desire expressed in a previous Opposition debate by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for a return to the previous Government's energy policy of replacing coal-fired power stations with gas-fired power stations—the effect of which would be to close pits and the coal industry, thereby losing 1,200 jobs in my constituency?

Mr. Redwood: The previous Government's policy was kinder on the coal industry than the current Government's policy has been—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not do any thinking or reading. Do they not know that the present Government have tightened environmental constraints beyond the rather tight constraints introduced by the previous Government, the end result of which is that more pits will have to close now than under the previous, Conservative Government's policy? So the hon. Lady has scored an own goal with that one and completely misunderstood the important point.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I must make progress, as we are running out of time in this rather short but very important debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, bankruptcies are rising. In the first three months of 1999, bankruptcies soared by 62 per cent, in the east Midlands and by 40 per cent. in both Wales and south-west England. A KPMG survey showed that receiverships are up by almost half in the north-east. Even a much better new deal than Labour's could not keep pace with the industrial devastation that we see daily on our television screens.
The Labour Government's answer to that high pounding of industry is to take £5,200 million out of business with their windfall tax; £14,250 million out of business in the first Budget; and £4,900 million out of business in their second Budget. They then had the audacity to tell us that we should be grateful for the "tax cut". It is not so much a tax cut, more a spin—but there is little spinning going on in the British textile industry after those Government policies. All we see is closure after closure.
The Conservatives want the Government to change course, and we propose a five-point plan for industrial recovery. First, the Government must cut business taxes. That will leave more money in the hands of business for investing in new plant, designing new products and creating new jobs. Secondly, the Government must stop imposing all those new rules and regulations and admit that their labour market legislation is an expensive shambles. They must either repeal it or exempt all small firms, which could then generate the jobs that we need.
Thirdly, the Government must tell the Bank of England that manufacturing matters. We need interest rates and an exchange rate that work for British business. The Opposition have often called for more sensible interest rates than those imposed by the Government and the Bank, and if our advice had been heeded at the time, the damage would have been limited.
Fourthly, the Government must get a better deal for British business from Brussels. They must use any influence that they may have to avert a trade war with the United States of America, and to press for the trade ban on British goods to be lifted. They must warn our partners that the beggar-my-neighbour devaluation of the euro must stop because it is destroying jobs in Britain.
Fifthly, the Government must sort out the mess that they have created by their specific attacks on individual industries. Petrol and diesel taxes are destroying our haulage industry, the Government's agriculture policy is destroying our farms, and the fishing policy is good for Spain but bad for Britain. Their muddled competition policy leaves media and sports businesses in confusion, and anybody with a vertical tie at a loss, having to pay huge lawyers' bills.
The Conservatives are setting out a clear pro-business agenda. We are once again the voice of business. My postbag is full of letters from the business community condemning the Government. Business wants us to warn and advise it before more factories close and more jobs are lost. I urge the Secretary of State—for the sake of the unions and his own constituents, if not because of my pleadings—to take those issues seriously, to answer the questions in the spirit in which they were posed, and to speak up and do something for British business.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the actions of the Government to reverse the industrial decline and the destruction of jobs, not least for young people, that characterised the situation while the Opposition formed the Government; welcomes the creation of over 400,000 jobs since the last election; notes the contrast between this situation and that of the Tory slow-down of 1989 to 1993 when over a million manufacturing jobs were lost; welcomes the achievements of the New Deal and its contribution to the 35 per cent fall since January 1998 in the number of young people unemployed for six months or more; believes that the sound economic policies of this Government are a better way to support industrial success and job creation than the interest rates at 15 per cent, budget deficits soaring, high long-term interest rates and boom and bust economics that were the previous Government's policy; and welcomes the strategy set out in the Competitiveness White Paper for encouraging enterprise, investment and innovation as the right way forward for Britain.".
There is one aspect of his strange and rather over-long speech that I think the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will regret—his comments about Kvaerner in Scotland. He should be aware that all political parties in Scotland, including the Conservative party, have agreed not to try to score cheap political points at the expense of the Kvaerner yard. I regret the way in which he introduced that element into the debate.
However, I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman did that. The debate is taking place at a difficult time for the Conservative party, because it is a party bitterly divided and in denial both about its record in government and about the principles that underpin it.


I am pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks on trade and industry, has been joined on the Front Bench by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the Conservatives on social security. Those two are not sitting round the kitchen table discussing the development of Conservative policy. They are being excluded from such matters, which are all being handed over to a group of former Social Democratic party members so that they can make the decisions.
I shall say more about kitchen table politics later, when I develop my theory about a party in denial of its principles. First, however, let us look at the Conservatives' denial of the past and of their record in government—a record of which the right hon. Member for Wokingham needs reminding. He was a Minister at most of the relevant times during the 1990s, yet he made no attempt to apologise for the mayhem and the destruction of the industrial base caused by his Government during the early 1990s, when they presided over one of the deepest recessions that we have ever seen in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to the recession of the early 1980s, when the Conservatives were in office. In the early 1980s, GDP fell by some 6 per cent., manufacturing output fell by 18 per cent. and jobs were lost to the tune of 1.75 million, of which 1.5 million were in the manufacturing sector. That was the record of the Conservative party in government in the early 1980s.
The right hon. Gentleman touched briefly on the employment record of this Government. He said very little about youth unemployment—Hansard will show that he spent longer on our correspondence than on youth unemployment—but that perhaps reflects the status that he likes to give himself over and above the needs of those young people. Between 1979 and 1984, youth unemployment increased by some 650,000 and long-term unemployment increased by some 450,000. That was the record of the Conservative party in government in the early 1980s, and we will not let the Conservatives forget it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: When the new deal started last April, the rate of unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds was 159,000, but the latest figure is 183,000. For the 18 to 24-year-olds, unemployment figures were 444,000 and are now 456,000. Those figures may be wrong, but they are the Government's figures from the Office for National Statistics. Why has youth unemployment gone up since the introduction of the new deal?

Mr. Byers: Yet again the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but at least he is consistent in that. The figures that he has mentioned include students looking for part-time work and parents with family responsibilities who are not seeking work. The claimant count—those who want employment—is down by more than a third under the new deal. That is the best way to count the figures for the new deal.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will address the issue of the new deal when he winds up the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall mention the new deal briefly when I need to address inaccurate and mistaken comments about it, but I wish to remind the House of the record of the Conservative Government in the early 1980s and the early 1990s. The latter period saw the second recession under that Conservative Administration.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham criticised this Government. He said that our interest rates were too high and that he was worried about the rate of inflation. I remind him that during the early 1990s, interest rates stayed at 15 per cent. for a year and were more than 10 per cent. for no fewer than four years, and inflation was at 10 per cent. During that time, manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham carries a personal responsibility because he was the Minister for Corporate Affairs during that time. In his contribution, he mentioned what he called a terrible record of personal bankruptcies and company insolvencies under this Government. Let us look at the record to see how successful he was as Minister for Corporate Affairs, and how companies and individuals prospered at that time. He became Minister for Corporate Affairs in 1989. In that year, the number of company insolvencies was 10,800, but then his magic began to work. In 1990, they were up to 15,500, in 1991 they were up to 22,400, and by 1992—when he left that office—they were up to 25,000. Of course, as soon as he departed, the figures went down again. In 1993, there were 21,000 company insolvencies.

Mr. Redwood: I shall ask the Secretary of State a variant of the usual question in this often-rehearsed debating point. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that he and the rest of the Labour Opposition at the time supported the exchange rate mechanism policy that led to those dreadful events and bankruptcies? They have never apologised in the way that we have. How is it right to do the same thing again? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not learn from the experience?

Mr. Byers: I know that the right hon. Gentleman hates to be reminded of his personal record. He likes to portray himself as a man of principle, but he was happy to remain a Minister in a Government who followed the course of action that I have described. He allowed the comfort of the leather seat in the ministerial car to take priority over his principles.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened when he was a Minister. I have shown how company insolvencies rose dramatically in that period, but we should also examine his record with regard to personal bankruptcies, a subject mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman himself. In 1989, when he took office, there were 10,400 personal bankruptcies, each one an individual tragedy. For the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, the personal bankruptcy figures were 16,400, 30,297 and 42,900. However, things began to look up after he left office in 1993—personal bankruptcies fell to 37,000 in that year. That is the right hon. Gentleman's record.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies, he should look at his own record: both rose dramatically while he was in office, and both began to fall as soon as he left office. That is the consistency as far he is concerned.

Mr. Bercow: What proportion of the 32 per cent. increase in small business bankruptcies in the first quarter of this year does the Secretary of State attribute to the savage tax and regulatory policies of his Government?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from the record of the right hon. Member


for Wokingham. However, as I have told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and as I said during Trade and Industry questions in the House three weeks ago, we as a Government have not got regulation right and we aim to improve our record in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said the same thing on Tuesday evening. We intend to put in place new procedures and mechanisms to ensure that we can lift the burden from businesses, be they small, medium-sized or large. I look forward to receiving a copy of the hon. Gentleman's Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction) Bill, to see whether it contains any proposals of merit. I live in hope.

Mr. Sheerman: Is not my right hon. Friend being unfair to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? My right hon. Friend mentioned company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies in that period, but not the levels of interest rates or unemployment. That is unfair, as it means that he could not compare them with their respective levels currently. I hope that my right hon. Friend will set the record straight so that we can get the full picture of those glorious days of "Redwood in action".

Mr. Byers: I know that many Labour Members like to be reminded of the days of Tory boom and bust. I wanted to avoid using the phrase but, given that the temptation has been put before me, I shall say once again that interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year and 10 per cent. for four years, that inflation was at 10 per cent. and that more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. That was the record of the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister for Corporate Affairs.

Mr. Redwood: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that, in this Government, the economy is run by the Under-Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry who holds the post equivalent to the one that I held? Does he set interest rates and create the conditions that lead to employment or unemployment? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I shall have to disabuse him: I did not do all that when I was an Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Byers: It wasn't me, guy? The point is well made. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who were happy to preside over that economic position, and he did nothing about it. If he had disagreed, he could have resigned. He did not—at least, not until quite a bit later. The right hon. Gentleman can smile at that, but he knows that he jumped before he was pushed in a reshuffle.
The Opposition have had a deplorable 10 days, and they know it. They are in a desperate situation. The shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green knows that very well. He is isolated, ignored and not included in discussions that are taking place. Neither he nor the right hon. Member for Wokingham are part of what is happening in the Conservative party, and I understand why they are here together, clinging to each other in their splendid isolation.
Over the past 10 days, the Conservative party has clearly been in denial—denying its very principles. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Member

for Chingford and Woodford Green subscribe to those principles: they believe in the free market, and that the private sector should have an increased role in providing public services. We know that those are their views. But the pair of them have been consigned to the dustbin of history. They no longer represent the views of the Conservative party.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham is often hyperactive, but he has been very quiet during the past few days of debate within the Conservative party. I understand why that is so. He has put on the record his firmly held views, and they are in total conflict with the present policies of the Conservative party.
Last week, the deputy leader of the Conservative party showed a new way forward on the rejection of privatisation. But in The Daily Telegraph of 29 January 1997, the right hon. Member for Wokingham made his personal position clear. He said:
I was an early advocate of privatisation, when it was thought wild-eyed and radical"—
an appropriate thing for him to have said, of course—
and an early practitioner, when it was still hazardous. No one can doubt my credentials as a privatiser.
That was the right hon. Gentleman's position. It will be interesting to see how he reconciles it with the position stated last week by the deputy leader of the Conservative party.

Mr. Redwood: That is terribly easy. I was always a keen and early advocate of privatising commercial trading business to which people paid money for services or goods and which we could hope to make profitable in the private sector. As Secretary of State for Wales, responsible for health and education there, I was extremely keen to increase budgets so that we had properly financed state schools and hospitals. They are vital services. I use the NHS myself, and I used the education system when I was of that age. I want others to have access to the best possible care, and I fully support all that the leader of the Conservative party said in his recent speech.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman made a deliberate slip there. He said that he supported everything that the leader of the Conservative party had said. I had referred to the deputy leader. Does he agree with all that the deputy leader said in his speech last week? Yes, or no?
There we have it. The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately failed to put it on the record that he agrees with the points made by the deputy leader of the Conservative party, specifically referring instead to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday evening. That clearly exposes the fundamental division in the Conservative party.

Mr. Redwood: What I have said shows no confusion or split. The leader has gone further than the deputy leader did. The leader included all the things that I think important. The deputy leader was saying that he wanted properly financed public sector schools and hospitals, and I provided just that when I was a Secretary of State. I am very keen on that, and there is no difference between the deputy leader and me on the need to put enough money into a state school or a state hospital.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the point. The issue is whether the private sector


should be involved in public services such as education and health. The right hon. Gentleman is on a hook, and I want to make sure that we find out his precise position. He deliberately sought to avoid my point about his leader and deputy leader.
Let us move on to the shadow Chancellor's position. Earlier this week, he said clearly that he believed that the Government's proposals on public spending should be agreed. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, commenting in The Daily Telegraph on 11 August 1998 on the comprehensive spending review, he said:
Labour's second big mistake was to announce huge increases in public spending"?
He went on to say:
The Opposition recommends promoting savings and reducing future public spending plans.
If that is what the right hon. Gentleman believes, how can he reconcile that with the comments made on Monday by the shadow Chancellor?

Mr. Redwood: There is a budget called welfare which is the shadow responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). We in the shadow Cabinet all agree that the welfare bill is increasing far too rapidly. We have opposed a number of changes that have led to that increase. The right hon. Gentleman will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), if he catches Madam Speaker's eye later in the debate, about one of the areas where we think we can reduce that bill to the considerable benefit of the country at large. Our proposals are to have a lower rate of increase in the welfare bill than the Government are suggesting so that we can create more room for a sensible tax regime for business. We are fully behind, and always have been, increasing spending on health and education. This Government are increasing it more slowly than the Conservatives did in Government.

Mr. Byers: Conservative Members have not always been behind the increase because the shadow Chancellor called it reckless and foolish at the time. What we know—we have heard it now from the right hon. Gentleman—is that there should be cuts in welfare spending. We know that already because of the points made by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The Conservatives are on record as having said that they would cut the working families tax credit. Where else would cuts be made to reduce public spending to the level at which the right hon. Gentleman would wish it to be? He needs to answer those particular questions.
Over the past 10 days, we have seen a Conservative party divided. I now want to move on to show how a Labour Government can move forward and provide the economic framework in which businesses can prosper.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he denied Wales millions and millions of pounds of European funding that was available at the time? Therefore, as opposed to supporting public expenditure,

his record shows that he handed back expenditure available to Wales and elsewhere for investment in public services.

Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's record across the piece, whether in relation to Wales or corporate affairs, bears detailed scrutiny.

Mr. Bercow: It does.

Mr. Byers: I agree absolutely. Perhaps we can move on now to the substance of what I want to say in relation to the economy that we inherited and the framework that we are putting in place.
There is no doubt that we inherited an economy that had strong inflationary pressures, with a large structural deficit on public finances and a public sector net borrowing requirement of £28 billion. In the face of unsustainable growth, rising inflationary pressures and high public borrowing, we had to take tough action to overcome the difficulties that we inherited. That is why we took the politics out of interest rates. We do not know yet whether the Conservatives agree with that policy. We are ensuring that rate decisions are taken in the national interest and on the basis of the long-term needs of the economy, and not on short-term political considerations.
We took action to put public finances back on track. As a result of those tough decisions, inflation is under control, interest rates have come down 2.25 per cent. in the past seven months and long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years. We have put public finances back on a sound footing. We are on track to meet our strict fiscal rules while investing £40 billion in our schools and hospitals. The economy continues to grow and create new jobs. The latest figures show that the economy grew by 2.5 per cent. during 1998. More than 400,000 jobs have been created since the general election. Long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 50 per cent. and youth unemployment is down by more than 55 per cent. since then. There are a record number of people in work.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham likes to refer to the number of jobs that are being lost. I think that his calculation is one every six minutes; it was one every 10. That fails to acknowledge the number of jobs being created. One job is created every two minutes. That is the reality under this Government, and 400,000 people are benefiting from our policies.
Jobs are being created in all regions and we have had some positive announcements recently. This year alone, more than 68,000 new jobs have been announced. The right hon. Member for Wokingham referred to the north-east. More than 5,000 new jobs have been announced there so far this year. In particular, Nissan has recently started recruiting for about 800 new jobs linked to the production of a new model.
In the north-west, there have been more than 9,000 job gains since the beginning of the year. Yorkshire and Humberside have experienced net gains of more than 2,000 jobs since November. The west midlands has had 650 new jobs recently announced. In the east midlands, about 6,500 new jobs have been announced so far this year, in the east of England, 4,700, and in the south-east, around 7,500. In London, nearly 4,000 new jobs have been created since the end of last year. In the south-west, almost 6,000 jobs have been announced in 1999.

In Scotland, 1,800 new jobs have been announced so far in April alone. On Tuesday, I was pleased to visit Motorola's Easter Inch plant at Bathgate where 400 jobs have been announced in the past few weeks. In Wales, 500 new jobs have recently been announced. In Northern Ireland, the Industrial Development Board has announced investments that promise 1,400 new jobs.
Those jobs have already been announced, but I have good news for the House on recent offers of regional selective assistance to companies, which are considering whether to accept them. Up and down the country, regional selective assistance will bring thousands of extra jobs in the weeks and months ahead. In the north-east, offers have been made that will safeguard or create 1,700 jobs. In the north-west, the figure is 2,455; in the south-west, more than 1,000; in the west midlands, 2,800; in Yorkshire and Humberside 1,700. In total, 11,700 jobs will be safeguarded or created.

Kali Mountford: I was delighted to hear that great list of new jobs. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that we will not return to the policies of the previous Government? When I lived in Sheffield, Brightside, I saw unemployment go from being the lowest in the country to the 12th highest because of the closure of the steel industry.

Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend. Among industries doing well in a competitive environment, the steel industry is being remarkably successful.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned the Siemens plant in north Tyneside. Regional selective assistance is an important part of any package to attract inward investment. It is offered, and comes, with conditions clearly attached. When a company fails to meet those conditions, we shall take action to claim back the moneys that have been paid over. I can inform the House that this morning, my Department invoiced Siemens in full for the £18 million of regional selective assistance that was provided to it. We shall recover that money and we shall use every penny of it to secure additional inward investment, whether for the north-east or for the rest of the country. We shall provide employment with the money that will be paid back to the Government by Siemens. It failed to meet the conditions that we set. It will now be required, as a matter of urgency, to repay the £18 million that it received so that we can use it to create employment opportunities.

Mr. Redwood: I wholeheartedly endorse that decision, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State has taken it and announced it to the House. Why did he not take it when I first recommended it to him at the time of the closure? Did he take it today because he learned today or just before today the news of the Paris development, or did he take it today because we forced a debate and he knew that I would raise the matter?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the past few months, there has been an active marketing exercise to promote the Siemens plant on north Tyneside as a viable plant for the microchip industry. While that was so, it would have been inappropriate to

reclaim the grant, because much of it was used specifically to develop the plant. He will know that just recently, Siemens took the decision to stop marketing the facility. In the light of that decision, officials in the Government regional office took action to reclaim the regional selective assistance. It was a matter in which I as Secretary of State was not involved. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the procedures are very clear. If the conditions are not met, officials act in accordance with the guidance set by Ministers. That is what has happened today, and that is why the claim has been made. The two events coincided.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: I want to finish this point; it is important.
The important point is that that £18 million will now come back to the Government. It will come back to the Department of Trade and Industry, not to the Treasury. We will be able to use the money this year to attract inward investment into the United Kingdom to safeguard jobs and provide new jobs.
As I understand it, there are particular reasons why Siemens has entered into the joint venture on the Paris facility. I regret that it was unable to secure a joint venture to develop microchips at the north Tyneside plant. The Government did all that they could to find a new buyer of the facility. When the record is made public, as I hope that it will be in the not-too-distant future, my constituents and people in the north-east of England will see clearly that it was not for want of effort by the Government that we were unable to find a buyer, but as a result of commercial decisions taken at a high level by Siemens.

Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State knows, as many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies know, that when jobs go to France, one gets a lot of accusations that the French have unfairly subsidised jobs. Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated what subsidy is going into Siemens? Has he lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission on that?

Mr. Byers: If there is a question of state aids being used in an inappropriate way, the Commissioner will need to investigate that. We have not yet seen the details of any agreement. We are relying on press reports at this stage. When we see the details, we will give close consideration to any subsidy.
It is vital that in the next few months, we continue to give support to industry. The White Paper that we published before December showing how the knowledge-driven economy could be used set out the new model for public policy and support for industry. It showed how the Government could invest to build on British capabilities, especially our science and engineering base and our skills. It showed how the Government could promote greater competition, principally by empowering consumers, and how they could act as a catalyst to collaboration between businesses, encourage greater business-to-business learning and encourage businesses to work with higher education institutions.
Success in tomorrow's fast-moving world depends critically on how well we exploit our most valuable and distinctive assets—our knowledge, including our world-class science base, our skills and our talent


for invention. The first industrial revolution was based on investment in plant, machinery and equipment; I have no doubt that the new knowledge-based revolution, through which we are now living, will require investment in human capital—in learning, skills and education. That is why the Government have committed an extra £19 billion to our schools, and the Department of Trade and Industry is committing extra money to improve workplace training, so that we have skills for the future.
In his speech, the right hon. Member for Wokingham led us to believe that it is all doom and gloom, but it is most important to realise that, in the United Kingdom, we have a number of world-class companies in particular sectors. We lead the world in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology; a combination of market liberalisation and technical advance has created a number of world-beating businesses in our telecommunications industry; and we need only to look at Nissan, in Sunderland in the north-east of England, to see Europe's most productive car plant. We need to celebrate and support that sort of success, and we need it throughout the whole economy. The challenge for any Government is to try to lift the medium to the best; that is what we intend to do.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
We need to focus on three key areas to raise our game. First, we must create an economic framework that rewards enterprise and promotes innovation and investment. Secondly, we must ensure that existing Government support for business is well tuned—especially to the needs of the manufacturing sector.

Mr. George Stevenson: My right hon. Friend puts a powerful case—one that will receive the support of the House later this evening. I have two concerns on which I should be grateful for his comments: first, the growing trade deficit—especially in manufactures; secondly, the exchange rate, particularly in regard to European currencies—which is of particular concern in north Staffordshire.

Mr. Byers: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. He has raised those matters with me privately. I understand that particular sectors face difficulties. However, he will be aware that the big appreciation in the value of the pound occurred before the general election. During the eight months running up to polling day, sterling appreciated against the deutschmark by about 22 per cent. Since the election, we have seen an appreciation of about 6 per cent. However, I am mindful of the problems. I hope to visit Stoke-on-Trent in the not too distant future, to see at first hand the particular problems faced by certain sectors.

Mr. Bercow: Given the Secretary of State's reference to human capital, I am a little surprised that he does not perceive the damage to its flexible use that is posed by the burdensome regulations on working time. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that he is aware of the statement, in the Daily Mail on 21 April 1999, by Lord Haskins—a lifelong Labour supporter, the chairman of

Northern Foods and the chairman of the better regulation task force? The noble Lord said:
We were consulted on the Working Time laws, but our advice was ignored … Its all a bit of a dog's dinner.

Mr. Byers: I understand that the noble Lord sells a great many dogs' dinners in his capacity as chairman of Northern Foods, so he probably knows far more about them than I do. I pointed out to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that we are reviewing the guidance on the working time directive. I believe that improvements can be made and that the changes that we shall introduce will be welcomed by business and employees alike. That is the role that we intend to take.
I want to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham about trade. Those points are important at present, given the banana regime and the position taken recently in relation to the United States and hormone-treated beef.
I believe that a shared commitment to open trade and orderly progress has been a driving force for growth, even in countries that not so long ago seemed to have been permanently left behind. Now, in many respects, that trend has stalled and, in some places, it has even been reversed, but I believe that to be a temporary setback, not a permanent condition. The essential answer to the problems we currently face is not less globalisation, nor new national structures to separate and isolate economies, but stronger international structures to make globalisation work in harder times, as well as in easy times. Our urgent need is closer co-operation, continuing dialogue and an unwavering commitment to open commerce. We must not let temporary instability put the global process at risk.
In stormy economic weather, there are easy, but dangerous, shelters: a return to protectionism, the breakdown of co-operation, and the rise of beggar-thy-neighbour policies. That can only yield further worsening of the situation; it cannot lead to renewed growth. Let the House in a common spirit send out a clear message that protection anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. Closing off national economies only increases national and international instability, and throughout the world, it is the poorest and most vulnerable members of society who suffer from financial crisis and stagnation. That is why we shall continue to work for a new round of trade liberalisation and better market access for our exporters of goods and services.

Mr. David Heath: I wholly agree with the Secretary of State on trade liberalisation, but does he agree with me that free trade does not equate to the interests of American corporations? There must always be recognition of factors—social, environmental, and so on—that might mean that certain technologies are not appropriate to some countries. That protection must be available to those countries to use if they need to do so.

Mr. Byers: There is the flexibility to take those factors into account within the procedures laid down the by the World Trade Organisation, and we shall ensure, during the new round of discussions that starts later this year, that those factors can continue be taken into account.
I conclude on the subject of trade by making one point that is important in the light of recent events. I assure the House that we want improvements to be made to the


mechanisms for settling disputes, so that we can resolve differences without recourse to damaging retaliation. It will be in the interests of all of us to be able to avoid the difficulties that we have encountered in recent months.

Mr. Paterson: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the benefits of world free trade. Does he consider that the unhappy episode over bananas could have been avoided if Britain had been a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Mr. Byers: I do not agree, because it would have meant that all sorts of pressures would have been applied, which would not have been helpful to our efforts in respect of the banana regime.
This debate comes at a difficult time for the Conservative party. The modern Tory party is a family at war, sitting around their newly acquired kitchen table in a kitchen that has, yet again, been redecorated in an attempt to freshen up their image. The photograph of grandmother was dumped in the skip outside, but hastily retrieved by the head of the household when he faced a family rebellion. After the past 10 days, the message that the Leader of the Opposition needs to learn is clear: "If you can't stand the heat, you'd better get out of the kitchen."
Despite all the noises offstage, the Government will not be diverted from our task. We believe that economic efficiency and social justice are two sides of the same coin. We are creating the climate in which businesses can prosper, creating jobs and providing sound public finances. The coalition that gave us victory in 1997 is still strong: as a party we are united and as a Government we are delivering on our promises. Government carries with it great responsibilities and burdens of state, and we shall discharge those responsibilities on behalf of our people and our country. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Paul Keetch: There were times during the past hour and three quarters when I wondered whether I would get in before the winding-up speeches. I begin with a word of warning to the Secretary of State: he should be careful about attacking the Leader of the Opposition. Some of us in this place believe he is doing a fine job and would like to see him remain in his position. I think the people of this country certainly recognise the Leader of the Opposition for what he is.
I want to explore what the motion means in terms of industry, job losses, youth unemployment and the new deal. Before I do so, I must admit that I think some parts of the motion are a bit rich. Liberal Democrat Members remember how the previous Government wrote off more than 2.5 million jobs in manufacturing over 18 years, so we find the Conservatives new concern for the unemployed rather stomach-turning.
The motion describes some of the problems in industry, but it fails to mention several difficulties that we believe are intrinsic to British industry at present—poor productivity, low investment in research and development and low skills levels.
Let us look at a few facts. The United Kingdom produces less per person than most other major economies. Our productivity gap of 40 per cent. with the

United States and more than 20 per cent. with France and Germany reflects a long-standing weakness in our economy. The United Kingdom invests less in research and development than our competitors. For example, the United States invests 50 per cent. more of its GDP in R and D than we do. The United States and Germany invest 40 per cent. more per worker in new capital equipment than the United Kingdom.
The skills gap in this country is fast becoming a yawning chasm. Some 22 per cent. of adults in the United Kingdom have poor literacy skills, which is twice as many as in Germany. Yet to listen to the Opposition, one would think that those problems began on 1 May 1997. The fact is that many of the weaknesses in the British economy date from the years of Tory mismanagement. While we are not totally happy with everything that the new Government are doing, we accept that they are trying to make a start.
Manufacturing industry is in recession and output is predicted to fall by between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. in 1999. As a direct result, instead of remaining flat, unemployment is likely to rise by 250,000. In its latest press release published last Friday, the Trades Union Congress states:
Britain is now a two speed two-nation economy. The slowdown in the coming year will further hit those areas with the greatest dependence on manufacturing. Manufacturing is moving into recession and the service area is continuing to expand.
The TUC calls it a two-speed economy, but, in a debate last year, I called it a Jekyll and Hyde economy. London and the south-east are becoming more prosperous while the north east and the west midlands are suffering.
For example, unemployment has risen by 3.7 per cent. in the north east of England in the past six months and by 3.3 per cent. in the west midlands. That area has lost nearly 4,000 jobs, but London and the south-east have gained more than 7,000 jobs in the same period. It is not just the traditional heavy industry or the metal-bashing areas of those regions that have been affected; light industry and manufacturing is also being hurt. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will know that the Thorn Lighting plant in Hereford may close, with the loss of 348 jobs. I accept the support that the Secretary of State and the Minister have offered, but we cannot afford to lose that kind of industry in a rural constituency.
Mention has also been made this afternoon of Siemens. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have examples of company closures in their constituencies, and that trend must not be allowed to continue.
In the Prime Minister's constituency, and in the constituencies of 105 other Members of Parliament, more than 30 per cent. of workers are employed in the manufacturing sector. According to the TUC study, "Jobs in Jeopardy", the right hon. Gentleman can expect economic hardship to increase in his constituency over the next 12 months. The Chancellor sometimes claims that those problems are due to the collapse of the global market and the failures of Asia, Russia or Latin America. However, the fact is that the United Kingdom exports more to the Netherlands than to those areas combined. The Treasury's own figures reveal that our key export markets are growing by a rate of nearly 6 per cent. a year, but the UK's take-up of that new business is barely 0.5 per cent. In our key export markets, therefore, British business is losing opportunities for growth.

The reasons for that are clearly the high value of sterling and high interest rates. The value of sterling is today 10 per cent. higher than it was when the Government came into office, and with interest rates still 2.5 per cent. higher than those in the rest of Europe, the extra cost of investment adds to our lack of competitiveness. The Government know what they have to do: they must now set a time scale for British entry into the single European currency, which will remove the burdens of an over-valued pound and high interest rates.

Mr. Stevenson: If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman is urging the Government to support immediate entry into the single currency, at what exchange rate does he think sterling should be locked in?

Mr. Keetch: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to consider that matter very carefully, and I insist that the Treasury should now start to prepare for entry. Our concerns are that we have not started preparations and that we do not have the information to make the necessary assessments. That is why I and other hon. Members have called for a White Paper.

Mr. Bercow: The point to which the hon. Gentleman refers is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of the issues and a recommendation for policy action. Does he believe that Britain should enter the euro on the basis of exchange rate mechanism mid-rates, and if not, what is his alternative? Is he not aware that all the countries that have entered in the first wave have done so at ERM mid-rates, and a specific derogation would be required if we were to enter on a different basis? I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands these issues.

Mr. Keetch: We are now almost two hours into the debate and only Front-Bench Members have made speeches, so I do not want to be diverted into a debate about the euro. I signed an early-day motion proposed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) which called for more information on the issue, and Liberal Democrat Members have criticised the Government, as we criticised the previous Government, for not producing information about the euro.

Mr. Paterson: Will Liberal Democrat Members read the treaty of Amsterdam? If the hon. Gentleman reads article 118 and paragraph 4 of article 123, he will find that we are bound by the treaty to enter at the basket rate—which means the median rate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said—and any derogation from that must be passed unanimously by all other existing members. We are therefore bound, at present, to enter at a rate of DM2.95 to £1 sterling, which would be catastrophic for the potters in Staffordshire.

Mr. Keetch: I suppose that it is all my fault for mentioning the single European currency. I have now taken interventions from precisely half the Tory Back Benchers in the Chamber.

Mr. McNulty: Two thirds.

Mr. Keetch: Indeed, two thirds. I assure the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that if he sends me those articles, I will read them.
I return now to the Conservative motion on youth unemployment and the new deal. According to the Conservatives, the new deal has failed to reduce unemployment. The charge in the motion repeats that made on the radio this morning by the Conservative employment spokesman. We commissioned research on youth unemployment from the Library.

Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman do a bit on the euro?

Mr. Keetch: Yes, I shall do a bit on the euro.
In response to the Conservative spokesman's comments this morning, I have to say that the Tories have got it wrong. It is true that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds who have been out of work for less than six months has risen by 10 per cent. since the general election. However, the new deal is for those who have been unemployed for longer than six months, and in that category, unemployment has fallen by over 58 per cent. since the general election.

Mr. Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman did not need to go to the Library; he could have read the unemployment figures when they came out last week. They reveal that the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months—they are pretty much the target for the new deal—has increased since the new deal was introduced last April. If the hon. Gentleman studies the figures and uses the Government's preferred unemployment rate, he will find that he is wrong in saying that the number of those unemployed for longer than six months has fallen.

Mr. Keetch: Again, 1 refer to the Library's figures. I started by considering what had happened since the election. Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say that between April 1998—when, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the new deal went national—and February 1999, the number of claimants aged between 18 and 24 halved. Youth unemployment is coming down.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Keetch: No; I will not.
There may be some anxiety over the definition of youth, but even in the number of claimants aged 16 and 17, there has been a 3 per cent. fall in unemployment, and in those aged between 25 and 29 there has been a 19 per cent. fall in unemployment.
On the radio this morning, responding to the shadow Employment Secretary's views, the Minister said that they were just plain wrong. For once, I agree with the Minister about the Conservatives' views.
However, we do not believe that all in the new deal garden is rosy, and we have tried to make some constructive changes. We believe that too many people are leaving the gateway. It was expected that 40 per cent. might leave, but 93 per cent. are leaving. We want to know what is happening to the 29 per cent. of those who leave new deal for destinations unknown. We want to know why, although the planners expected 20 per cent. of those involved in the new deal to take the education and training option, more than double that percentage—


49 per cent.—are doing so. We also want to know why ethnic minorities seem to be getting a poor deal. However, only slight alterations need to be made.
Many of the problems that we have suggested may be occurring, arise from the scheme's introduction. It is too early to say that the new deal is working, but it is also too early to say that it is a failure.
In conclusion, industry is certainly failing, but for the Conservative party to suggest that it is the new Government's doing is ridiculous. The Tory party must take account of its responsibility for the underlying weaknesses in British industry. That is why the Liberal Democrats will oppose the motion.

Mr. Frank Field: There is an air of unreality about the debate, arising as it does from an Opposition motion decrying job losses.
I represent an area that has still to recover from the haemorrhage of job losses in the early 1980s. Thanks to the entrepreneurial skills of British industry—rarely the abilities of British Governments—the country as a whole now has more jobs than it had in 1979; but in areas that still depend heavily on manufacturing industry, such as the area that I have the privilege to represent, a massive job deficit persists, thanks to the way in which the Tories behaved in government, especially in relation to the exchange rate. Therefore it ill behoves them, when they face a Labour Government who can report an overall increase in jobs during their stewardship, to try to pass motions of censure.
In Birkenhead, we are still 2,000 full-time-jobs short compared with when the Tories came to power in 1979. Whereas there has been a massive increase in part-time jobs in the rest of the country, there has actually been a slight fall in the number of such jobs in Birkenhead.
When we talk about the new deal, we are talking about a Government who are trying to help people throughout the country, but especially in areas where it is very difficult indeed to get jobs.
I congratulate the Government on the new deal, on four counts. First, long-term unemployment has been abolished among those under 25. It might mean nothing to Conservative Members, but it means a great deal to my constituents that the era when it was enough merely to pay benefits and forget about people is over. That era of long-term unemployment has drawn to a close; on those grounds, I thank the Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Field: No. I think that there have been far too many interventions in the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech.
Secondly, I congratulate the Government on transforming what has been primarily a reactive welfare system into a proactive one. When the welfare state was established, the vast majority of people claiming benefit were pensioners, and it was totally proper that we focused on delivering benefits effectively. Now the vast majority of people drawing benefit are below retirement age.

Merely paying benefit is simply not good enough. The new deal represents a significant shift from a reactive to a proactive welfare system. It is not good enough for the Opposition merely to talk about the number of people who have moved from the new deal into jobs, though that is significant. This programme is about changing the whole culture of welfare and people drawing welfare. I congratulate the Government on that count.
Thirdly, this Government—of any Government—have devised the most effective and humane way to counter benefit fraud. Previous Governments fired randomly at claimants. Some people were cheating and some were not. People were driven off and we did not know whether they should have been claiming benefit or not. We now have a system whereby people are offered a full-time option at the end of their gateway process. On average, about a third of claimants cease claiming when they have to take a full-time option.
It is clear that many of those claimants have jobs. In my constituency of Birkenhead, the figure rises to slightly more than 50 per cent. The Government have come up with what the electorate have been longing for: a system that genuinely tries to help those who want to work, but cannot, and, at the same time, deals effectively with those who are drawing benefit while working.
I congratulate the Government, fourthly, because, through new deal, genuine entrepreneurial skills are being developed by the benefit staff themselves. It is a real pleasure to talk to them about what they are doing, what they are achieving and how they are able to help. They take pride in the operation that they can now offer.
We have abolished long-term unemployment, as it was known, for the under-25s and we are moving from a passive to proactive welfare system. We are helping those who genuinely want work and the Government have devised the most effective way of countering fraud. Entrepreneurial skills are being developed in the public sector. On all those counts, I congratulate the Government.
In the few more minutes of the House's time that I want to take, I merely wish to make a plea about how I should like welfare-to-work mark 2 to develop. The Government are considering that issue and some announcements, which are seeing us into that second stage, have been made. These are my suggestions.
First, I am concerned, as we all are, about the number of people on welfare to work who move from the gateway into the subsidised job option. We know that making that move is the most effective way of getting a long-term job after the subsidised job is finished. The proportion of people on that option has fallen from about 50 per cent. to 15 per cent. Why is that? Have all the employers with jobs to offer already come forward, is there only a particular stock of jobs available under that option at any one time, and do we need to talk much more carefully to individual employers about why they do not want people from the dole queue or from welfare to work? I should like the Government to think seriously about that. I could develop some other ideas, but other hon. Members wish to speak.
Secondly, I want the Government to be much tougher on those who have already worked out how to get back on to benefit without taking the option. In the Wirral we know which doctors are signing people off sick for 13 weeks so that they can return to benefits afterwards.


Although it is difficult to do that at the moment, can we have an assurance that people who have been on welfare to work and leave when they are offered a full-time option will be immediately offered that option whenever they return to the welfare rolls—within a year, for example? Such people should have to make that choice. They should not have the choice of spending six months unemployed and four months in the gateway before having to choose whether to go for the full-time option.
Thirdly, I make a plea to Ministers to think about shortening the gateway. Most claimants have four hours of interviews during the gateway. Why does it have to last four months? It had to at the beginning, because we were trying something new, but we are offering only five hours of interviews during four months. Could not we shorten the gateway? That would make welfare to work much more effective.
Fourthly, may I make a plea for us simply to give the whole budget to offices that are clearly developing entrepreneurial skills—including the benefit budget—so enabling them to run welfare-to-work schemes? Let me give two examples relating to the Birkenhead office. It cannot allow people on training schemes to apply for driving licences. I understand why that is not done on a national basis, but in Birkenhead there are jobs waiting to be taken by people with driving licences. If local offices had real control over their budgets, they would arrange courses specifically for people who could apply for known jobs.
This is my second example. There are, thank God, some unskilled jobs waiting to be filled in north Wales, but there is no easy transport to north Wales. An entrepreneurial manager wants to lay on a bus, which would be taken up later by someone else who found that profit could be derived from it, and we would be able to fill the vacancies from Birkenhead. We should begin to trust staff who show that they have real entrepreneurial skills in mark 2 of our welfare-to-work scheme.
Finally, let me make a plea on behalf of claimants who, having done everything in their power to make the scheme a success and having done all that is required of them, do not ultimately secure a job of any kind. Can we stop allowing them to languish for two months, as we do now, before introducing them to what they will consider to be no more than a treadmill? Can we think imaginatively in regard to mark 2? Can we link subsidies to individual workers, empowering them to go out and see whether they can find an employer when everyone else has failed to find an employer for them?
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the welfare-to-work programme, which has proved remarkable in many ways. We could, of course, make some criticisms, but, in view of the significant advances that have been made, they would be carping criticisms. Given the success of mark 1, many of us are anxious to discuss constructively with the Government how mark 2 might develop: indeed, many of us cannot wait for that discussion to begin.

Mr. Owen Paterson: One industry is being devastated by the Government's policies. The state of that industry underlines all that Conservative Members have said about the fact that the Government do not understand business, and do not understand the impact

that their policies are already having throughout the country. I refer to the road haulage industry, which employs 500,000 drivers and another 500,000 staff in warehouses and offices.
In a debate on Tuesday this week, much was made of the fact that the fuel duty escalator was introduced by the last Government at 3 per cent. The haulier named in the now infamous KPMG report which, since last Wednesday's debate, the Government no longer mention—it was not referred to on Tuesday—has given me figures showing that in 1994 only Spain and Luxembourg had cheaper fuel than the United Kingdom. That is a startling contrast with the present situation. The United Kingdom now has easily the most expensive diesel in Europe. The difference is astonishing. Let us consider the cost of filling a 1,200-litre lorry with two tanks. The difference between the cost here and the cost in Luxembourg is £350.40; the figures for Belgium and France are £330 and £267.60 respectively.
Since last week's debate, the haulier named in that famous report has been taking steps to move his whole business to Luxembourg. During our debates, several senior members of the Government told us that the fuel duty did not really matter, and that vehicle excise duty did not matter, because we had lower business costs, lower insurance costs and lower corporation tax.
I shall show the House that the Government are completely wrong. The Deputy Prime Minister, who may not be the brightest, gave us figures during Prime Minister's questions showing that Belgium and Holland had business costs that were unaccountably £800,000 and £600,000 more expensive that ours. [Interruption.] I should be most grateful to the Minister if he would listen while I explain the difference.
Vehicle excise duty in Luxembourg is £226 as against £5,750 in this country. This man runs 90 trucks, so that is a £497,000 difference. He buys 4.5 million litres of diesel a year, and the difference on that is more than £1.3 million. The savings on fuel and VED by operating trucks in Luxembourg is £1,811,160.
Set against that is the savings on a driver paid £330 a week, his pension and national insurance contributions, and the insurance on the vehicle, which would give an advantage over Luxembourg of about £14.20 per week per driver. This man generously told me that he made a profit last year of £400,000, so the saving on corporation tax, which is 30 per cent. in this country and 33 per cent. in Luxembourg, is only £12,000.
The total United Kingdom saving is £78,456, giving this man the benefit of a £1,732,704 saving by moving his entire business to Luxembourg. If my figures are wrong, I should like the Minister to prove it. He should put in the Library the back-up figures for the Deputy Prime Minister's claim that cheaper social and running costs outweigh the disadvantages of more expensive VED and petrol duty.
It is sad that such a successful export business is moving abroad. The man was quite clear. He said that the Chief Secretary's comments in the debate the other night were stupid, and that they showed that the Government were not going to listen—"therefore I'm off".
As for the impact on other hauliers, I shall quote my constituent, Dave Yarwood from Maesbury. He said:
Companies are in business to make a profit, nobody minds paying tax on profit. Indirect taxation however is making it impossible for some businesses to make a profit in the first place.


Figures from the Library show a dramatic increase in the number of foreign-registered trucks leaving this country. In 1997, there were 597,000, and for the four quarters ending quarter three 1998 there were 690,000. That is an astonishing increase, and it is due to the benefits of cabotage, which as free traders we welcome. However, the Government have not taken on board the impact of cabotage. Foreign trucks with the benefit of cheaper VED and dramatically cheaper fuel can come to this country and will wipe out our hauliers. Our hauliers will go.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which Government agreed to remove cabotage restrictions in the United Kingdom for road haulage?

Mr. Paterson: The Conservative Government. I am a total supporter of cabotage, because I believe in free trade. Cabotage will work only if there is a level playing field. The Government have manacled our hauliers behind both ankles, so they cannot compete.

Ms Claire Ward: With his reference to a level playing field, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be tax harmonisation across Europe?

Mr. Paterson: I am in favour of taxes being as low as possible in all countries. I salute the socialist Government in France. I have a cutting from Figaro of 29 September 1998, which says that the French Government introduced a rebate so that French truckers could compete with truckers in Luxembourg.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it would be helpful to the debate if the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) were to understand that we want lower taxes here? We do not think it our business to encourage other member states of the European Union to make their taxes higher. It is a blindingly obvious point, and I hope that the hon. Lady can grasp it.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. However, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall move on to deal with another matter.
The Government also claim that the measure—by providing a rebate for converting engines to use ultra-low sulphur diesel, for example—will create great environmental benefits. However, it costs £4,000 to convert a euro 1 engine, and £3,500 to convert a euro 2 engine. It is therefore not surprising that very few hauliers are tempted by the Government's offer of a £1,000 rebate as compensation.
One haulier said:
We have been given a £1,000 reduction per vehicle annually if we fit a particulate trap to reduce emissions. This will cost £2,500 per vehicle, is guaranteed for 12 months only, is unreliable and may not be compatible with our vehicles. It is not cost effective.
The measure is also not environmentally effective, as more crude oil has to be cracked to create ultra-low sulphur diesel than ordinary diesel. Worse still, Mobil CNG estimates that ultra-low sulphur diesel is 4 per cent. to 7 per cent. less efficient. A large haulier in Sheffield converted 130 38-tonne trucks and reported an 8 per cent. increase in fuel consumption, costing him £250,000 in the

first year. It is yet another case of the Government not getting their facts right, not understanding how things work, and creating extra costs for a successful British business.

Mr. Derek Foster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's case on fuel. I think—as I said in my speech immediately after the Budget—that our Government made a big mistake in taking that action, which is also undermining our making work pay strategy for the working poor in my rural constituency. However, is this not an unreal debate? Successive Governments have perpetrated a deception upon the electorate—that it is possible to have superb public services and to reduce taxation. The truth is that the taxation burden has increased year after year—under the Thatcher Government, under the Major Government, and now under our own Government. Why do we not tell people the truth—that we cannot have good education and good health without paying for them? Why do we not get them to pay for those services by the most just means—by increasing personal taxation?

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful for that intervention by the right hon. Gentleman, who has made the most pertinent point—that the Government think that they have found a golden-egg laying goose that will not bite back. The Government are taking £36 billion from road users, but are reinvesting in roads a paltry £6 billion.

Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman mentioned golden eggs. Has he perhaps forgotten that the previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator?

Mr. Paterson: With deepest respect, had the hon. Lady been listening to my earlier remarks, she would know that I said that, at that time, only two other countries in Europe had lower diesel costs than ours and that the policy worked. Now, we have by far the most expensive diesel in Europe, but are not achieving environmental benefit because of it.
We are trying to achieve, based on 1990 figures, a 12.5 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions. According to the Library, the 1990 emissions total was 159 million tonnes, of which only 30 million tonnes were caused by road transport—of which only 16 per cent. came from freight. Therefore, eliminating the freight element would reduce carbon emissions by a maximum of only 5 million tonnes. The Government's policy does not make any environmental sense.
In our debates on the issue, the Government have also trumpeted their creation of a forum. We were told that the Government had listened, and understood that industry was in crisis, and that they had consequently instantly reacted. However, the facts paint a somewhat different picture. The forum has met only once, and under some duress. Three senior members with trucking businesses—the chairman of the Road Haulage Association, the president of the Freight Transport Association, and another senior haulier—were banned from the meeting. There was no agenda for the meeting, of which no minutes were published. No further meetings or agendas were planned. All we know is that, today, a meeting has been announced between civil servants and one of the senior members of a trade association.


The Government do not care about industry. They were interested only in having the spin and catch-phrase that "a forum has been established".
When the Minister replies, will he let me know what the future programme for the forum is, and what the Government intend to do about an industry that has been brought to its knees? An uncompetitive transport industry affects every business in the country.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: What a curious lot the Opposition are. Instead of concentrating their fire power sensibly, as their depleted numbers would suggest that they might, they have brought to the House a cumbersome portmanteau of a motion. In academic publishing in recent years it has been the custom to roll out titles in threes, to give them a sort of spurious quality that they would not otherwise possess. The title of the Opposition debate, citing job losses, the state of industry and the new deal, falls squarely into that category.
It is remarkable how much time the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spent in working out his own equivalent of the Henry Root letters. The rest of his speech consisted of the amnesiacs' almanac of the Tory Government's failures over the 18 years before the present Government came to power.
It is interesting that the Tory motion recommends a change of policy. I suppose it is a start to discover that they at least have a policy to which they can recommend we change. In view of the events of the past week, the only problem is: which policy is that? Is it the policy of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)? Is it the policy of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), or the policy of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)?
During the debate, the Opposition have not told us whether the market will provide. Until they settle that conundrum, perhaps Tory central office had better update the old advertising slogan: "If you want to be vague, ask for Hague."
The three key areas of the debate are business, employment and the new deal. Under the previous Government, we were told that the market would provide. I ran a small business, employing eight people, for 12 years under that Government, and I have in my constituency about 1,500 small bed-and-breakfast establishments, hotels and guest houses, so I know that hundreds of such businesses went to the wall in those years under the previous Government's yo-yoing exchange rates and lack of organised economic policy.
The Conservatives gave us long-term interest rates 2 per cent. higher than those of Germany and France, and the worst share of world trade this century. In 1994, the gross product investment was only 15 per cent.—less than that in any other industrialised country. The present Government have introduced policies that lock in long-term stability at macro level. That is why we introduced operational independence for the Bank of England. We cannot abolish the business cycle, but we can reduce its amplitude. Let us contrast that with the monetarist-driven boom and bust of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. Today, inflation is close to the target of 2.5 per cent. and long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years.
Micro policy reforms are also central to the Government's agenda. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spelt those out, as he has on many occasions. They involve education, training, access to capital and labour markets, product market competition, and investment in infrastructure and in science and technology. The Government realise that there is no reason not to invest in labour. Investing in labour is the most important thing, although the previous Government thought that tax breaks for capital were all that mattered.
Let us think about employment and manufacturing industry. In my constituency many people work for British Aerospace, a key employer involved with the Eurofighter. The Government have been particularly successful in that area. In 1998 they introduced a public-private partnership, with £123 million being spent on design and development of the wings of the A340 airliner. By February this year, the 2,000th airbus wing had been completed; 556 aircraft were ordered in 1998, and £39 billion worth of orders have been generated worldwide. At the beginning of this week, Airbus launched the A318 aircraft, with 109 orders—more than had originally been suggested.
The Government have done an enormous amount in the Budget for small businesses, including the new lop rate of corporation tax, the new Small Business Service to improve Government's approach to small businesses, the automated payroll service, and the extension of 40 per cent. first-year capital allowances for another year. Those are welcome and important measures.
The Opposition have been scornful about the new deal but even they have not dared to attack it directly.

Mr. Green: Just wait.

Mr. Marsden: The hon. Gentleman may wish to chance his arm later in the debate. It is perhaps not surprising that the Opposition have been diffident about attacking the new deal, in view of the success that it has engendered. Given the Opposition's cynicism, it is surprising that they have not ventured their arm a bit more. They ran no fewer than 29 different employment and training schemes between 1979 and 1997. Those schemes still left the unemployment figures higher when the Conservatives left office, whereas the new deal is probably the most ambitious, concentrated and structured programme for the lifetime of a Government that has been put forward since the second world war.
Tory policies were designed to massage the jobless statistics and put people on schemes of little value. The unemployment unit of Youth Aid has described the way in which the Tories cynically encouraged many hundreds of thousands of unemployed people into economic inactivity and long-term reliance on breadline benefits. That should be contrasted with what we have done with the new deal. By Easter this year, 300,000 people had joined the new deal, including 250,000 young people. Nearly 60,000 young people are already in jobs and a further 40,000 are in other training and education options. In Blackpool, more than 200 people had left the gateway to start jobs by this Easter.
We saw many crocodile tears from the right hon. Member for Wokingham about manufacturing industry, but the new deal has also been of key importance in


service industries. That is crucial in my constituency. Government initiatives to improve the quality and availability of training are crucial to competitiveness in the tourist industry. The flexibility of the new deal on seasonal employment and its training and employment options—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his response to this issue—has been especially beneficial. The British Hospitality Association estimates that the new deal could create between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs in the tourism sector. In my constituency, a further education institute is gearing itself to become a centre of excellence for tourism-related qualifications. The good work that I have seen at Blackpool and Fylde college is a good example of that.
The April issue of Youth Aid's "Working Brief' gives a detailed comparison of the job figures and the labour trends. It states that the new deal figures enable
us to identify that the progress of New Deal eligible young people into jobs from the Jobseeker's Allowance count has been stronger than that for either older long-term unemployed or than shorter-term unemployed people of whichever age.
Furthermore, this strong progress into jobs has not been at the expense of the older, long-term unemployed, as had been feared.
I have described some of the specific, noticeable and measurable successes that we have already had with the new deal. The Conservatives have no answer to that. They have no answer to the criticisms that have been made of their previous policies for business and employment. We have been told several times this week, as they have got deeper and deeper into trouble, that their policies represent a seamless web with those of the great leader, but—in the 20th anniversary year of Thatcherism—that web has become hopelessly tangled and formless. It is like the cobwebs on the tables of Miss Havisham's wedding feast, but now the jilted bride is not Charlotte Rampling but she who would once be obeyed. It is eight years since the Conservatives did the dirty deed, but they still cannot decide whether they have come to praise Caesar or to bury her. They can try as much as they like this afternoon to run from the sterile legacy of Thatcherism, but they cannot hide from the statistics over which they presided and which we have referred to this afternoon. Those statistics show how unwise they were to table this motion in the first place.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I shall be brief, as I know that we are reaching the end of the debate. I shall begin by discussing the new deal in Northern Ireland.
I have been worried about the closure of a number of the action for community employment schemes, which have benefited many of the deprived areas that have suffered as a result of 30 years of terrorist violence. However, I welcome today's announcement by the Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office, with responsibility for education and training. He has made available a funding package of £9.6 million to strengthen the delivery arrangements for the new deal in the Province and to underpin the transition from the ACE schemes to the new deal. I welcome that, both for my constituents and for people in many parts of Northern Ireland. There had been concerns about the inadequacies of the new deal arrangements in comparison with the very valuable

community services provided by ACE schemes. I hope that the additional money will help the transition and that it will enable the valuable work done under many of the ACE schemes to continue under the new deal arrangements.
The available statistics cover only the period up to the end of January. They show that almost 9,000 young people in Northern Ireland had taken up the opportunities provided by the new deal scheme by that time, and I hope that many of them will go on to find long-term employment.
However, the problem in Northern Ireland is that the level of unemployment remains very high. The problem is especially acute in those parts of the Province that have suffered from a lack of investment. Attracting new industry is very high on the agenda when it comes to tackling unemployment in Northern Ireland. 1 encourage the Government to give even greater priority to the need to attract that investment.
In addition, I hope that the Government will provide significant and adequate support for local businesses. Most of the new jobs being provided in Northern Ireland are in small, indigenous businesses that want to expand but are finding it difficult to do so. Especially heavy is the impact of increasing transport costs, on which industry—and especially small business—in Northern Ireland is so dependent. I shall return to that problem in a moment.
Dependence on service-related industries in Northern Ireland is too high, which is why it is important, in the attempt to attract new industry, to bolster the manufacturing sector and make it even more competitive. There have been significant job losses in the industrial sector, not helped by the recent demise of Mackies, one of the largest and most renowned businesses in Belfast. I hope that something can be done to rescue that firm, especially given that it is located in a part of Belfast with very high unemployment.
Economic growth and manufacturing output in Northern Ireland have slowed in the past couple of years. It is important that the Government, in helping business to overcome its difficulties, recognise the damage that increased fuel duties do to industry. That is especially evident in a region such as Northern Ireland, where transport is so vital to the ability to compete in the wider market place. In Northern Ireland, £100 will purchase about 139 litres of diesel, compared with the 229 litres that it will buy in the Irish Republic, our nearest neighbour. That shows how difficult is the problem faced by road hauliers and industry generally in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Government will do something to address that problem. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land boundary with another European Union member state. We are working in a competitive environment, and crippling transport costs blunt our ability to compete. We will face job losses in the coming weeks, particularly in the haulage industry, unless the Government address spiralling fuel costs.
Let me turn to the impact of devolution on our ability to attract inward investment to all regions of the United Kingdom. My party is concerned that devolved Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales and a Parliament in Scotland may mean increased competition


between the regions of the UK. That competition will affect not only the three regions with devolved assemblies; it will affect the English regions too.
The Minister and his colleagues are working to establish liaison between the regions on inward investment, and I should like to know what progress has been made. The last thing the UK needs is English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembly members and Ministers going to Europe and the rest of the world to compete with each other, spending British taxpayers' money as they try to win jobs for different regions.
That would be a desperate waste of resources, and I hope that the Minister will address liaison and co-operation between the regions of the UK. We are not against competitiveness, but money must not be wasted as we go after the same jobs for different regions of the UK.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I have three minutes, so shall make my comments brief. I want to offer two examples from my experience of working with young unemployed people who are among the most vulnerable members of our community—those who have left care.
I had some experience of the 29 failed employment programmes run by the previous Government. In one case that sticks vividly in my memory, we had worked for many months with a young person who wanted to develop a career in retail. We arranged for him to start on a Government-financed programme. It involved four days a week at work and one day a week in college. After three weeks, he gave up because all he had done was wash cars on a garage forecourt. He had not learned about customer care; he had not learned about stock control; he had not learned about marketing. He did not tell us what had gone wrong because he did not want to let down his carers or his social worker. The problem was that we had no staff to find out or monitor the quality of that placement, and that was often the case. There was no investment, so there is no comparison between that example and the new deal.
I recently met a young man who had been taken on by a construction company. He had been unemployed for more than two years. He had lost confidence and he was up to his neck in debt. Staff who had worked closely with the construction company were impressed by the support given. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities knows all about the revolution that has happened among jobcentre staff in my constituency and how well they work with employers.
That young man asked me why new deal had not been brought in years ago. We all know the answer. What a contrast young people will see come the next general election. We have a minimum wage, a new deal and fairness at work. Compare that with £1 an hour, hire and fire and washing cars. What a difference between us and the Tories.

Mr. Damian Green: It has been instructive to listen to most of the speeches from Labour Members this evening, starting with the Secretary of State, since many of them have wanted to talk about anything other than the Government's record on industry and employment. There are honourable exceptions, however, such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)

and my near neighbour in Kent, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). Kentish Members are always good value. Characteristically, also, we have had from the Liberal Democrat Benches simply a feeble echo of some of the Government's less good arguments.
I will speak about the new deal because the Government's miserable industrial record has already been comprehensively demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and, in the specific context of the road haulage industry, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).
There is a link between the two halves of this debate and it is betrayal. Just as the Government are betraying British manufacturing industry with higher taxes and regulations, so they are betraying the young unemployed with a crude, ineffective and expensive new deal programme.
The Minister and I have spent the day trading statistics. The House should beware of any new deal figures. There is a most instructive article in today's Financial Times which shows that the basis on which the new deal is calculated is bogus. The success that the Government claim for the new deal is those who go into unsubsidised jobs. An article that comes from a briefing from the Minister's own Department reveals that the category of those who have found jobs include people who got a job on their own initiative after being invited to the new deal interview but before the interview happened, those who got jobs at the interview but without real help and—this is a good one—those who have been working full-time and claiming fraudulently but have used the interview invitation to announce that they have just found work, as well as those for whom the new deal has proved a genuine success. The Department admits that it cannot split the figures into these different categories, so it just claims all those categories as successes for the new deal.
The Minister claims that youth unemployment has come and is coming down, and I can half agree with him. Youth unemployment has fallen consistently in the 1990s. I hope that he will agree with me why it has fallen: it is because the previous Government cut business taxes and business regulations and made Britain the best place for inward investment. The previous Conservative Government made it easy for businesses to create jobs. The result was that, between April 1993 and May 1997, unemployment among young people fell by 240,000. That is a significant figure, because the Government's target for the new deal job placements, assuming they can ever measure them correctly, is 250,000. That reveals that the Conservative Government achieved the target of creating 250,000 or so new jobs for young people without extracting billions of pounds in extra taxes from productive industry.
I would not want to say that the new deal is making no difference. During the last Conservative Government, the monthly average for young people moving off the unemployment count was 33,000. Since the new deal has been introduced, the figure has been just under 20,000. The new deal has made a difference: it means that fewer


young people are moving off the unemployment count every month than did so under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will have heard me challenge the Secretary of State on the International Labour Organisation figures, according to which unemployment among young people has increased by 12,000. He prefers table 11, which shows the claimant count. According to it, over the past year, unemployment has decreased by 14,000, but it does not say that the 36,950 on non-employment options who have been taken off the claimant count need to be added in. In fact, unemployment, with that added back in, has increased by 22,000 under the claimant count figures, too.

Mr. Green: That is a valid point. The Government say that their preferred measure of unemployment is that of the ILO, under which youth unemployment has gone up under the new deal. As my hon. Friend said, if we include the real figures under the claimant count—the figure that the Government suddenly prefer—it has gone up, too. Their argument is bogus.
I do not claim that fewer people are leaving the unemployment register entirely because of the new deal. It is mostly because the Government are making it more difficult to employ people. The point is that the new deal is not solving the problem. The Government are trying to deny failing to meet their basic pledge. We have had arguments about statistics, not least from the Liberal Democrats. In such circumstances, I always feel that, to get to the heart of the Government's policy, one should examine their pledge card. I see that they have a new one which announces flatly that youth unemployment has been halved with the new deal. That is simply and flatly untrue. General youth unemployment has risen since the new deal was introduced. The Government have already broken one of their five pledges. I am sure that the electorate will take note of that in next week's local elections and in all future elections.
There are more subtle ways in which the new deal is failing. It is not making young people more employable. Both parties want to make young people more employable. Training and education are central to the new deal philosophy, but what happens to those who take the training option? On today's figures, two thirds do not find a job at the end of it. They will stop coming if they do not do so. Today's new deal figures show that 34 per cent. of those who entered it went to destinations unknown to the Department. Even if they found jobs, the new deal was so useless that they could not be bothered to pick up the phone to tell their employment adviser, "Thanks for finding us a job."
More damningly, 13 per cent. have gone straight back on to welfare. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, this is not welfare to work; for too many young people, the new deal is welfare to welfare. By the end of February, of those on it the longest—the first cohort from January 1998—3 per cent. were still on the gateway, which is meant to last four months, and 12 per cent. were on follow-through. That means that they had been all the way around and back again. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not abolishing long-term unemployment, but redefining it.
The Government know that business is becoming increasingly disillusioned. Allied Carpets pulled out of participation after recruiting only 30 people, whom it regarded as not suitable. Marks and Spencer took on only a third of the number that it had hoped for. Dixons sent a member of staff to train 200 personal advisers, but has so far recruited only 12 people through the new deal.
There is one great success for new deal recruitment. The most that any business has been able to find is 80 trainees, but the Employment Service has managed to find 289 specifically to administer the new deal. I submit that those are the only 289 positions that can be ascribed to it.
Young people are disillusioned. Last month, the Evening Standard quoted a new deal participant from Hackney, who said:
They knew next to nothing about my field—they'd advise me what companies I should try by looking through the Yellow Pages …In the end I found a job myself and the company that took me on did so without having anything to do with the New Deal.

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: I am, as ever, tempted by the hon. Lady, but, with only two minutes left, I must reject her on this occasion.
There is also the question of the cost per job. I calculate that it is £11,000; the Government claim that it is £1,000. The Minister and I can argue about that, so I shall turn to prose more elegant than that in my pamphlet, "The Four Failures of the New Deal", which is available from the Centre for Policy Studies. Matthew Parris makes the point better than I did. He made inquiries after I asked the Secretary of State about this and found that the £1,000 price tag
represents the cost of helping the successful job-finder into the job—but takes no account of what is spent on those who did not get jobs.
In other words, it is much more expensive, and others have made the same calculation.
Hon. Members have asked what we would do instead. We would have a less crude, more targeted programme aimed at areas of chronic high unemployment, particular groups in society and disadvantaged individuals. That would not only be a more intelligent, but a more compassionate way to spend public money. We do not measure our compassion by how much taxpayers' money we can waste on useless schemes.
The Minister will no doubt assume that he will be re-elected; I assume that he will not be. If he is able to, will he continue the new deal beyond 2002? If the answer is yes, how will he find the next £5 billion? The Government have not told us that yet.
The new deal is a perfect symbol of new Labour. It is overhyped, overpriced, overrated and it is underperforming. It is failing young people, failing business and failing the taxpayer. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of this motion this evening to register a much-needed protest.

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) chided us on who had spoken about what. I found it highly significant that


it was not until he stood up to speak that any of his hon. Friends offered any criticism of the new deal. They are obviously no more convinced by the statistics that he has paraded all day than we are. The truth of the matter could hardly be better summarised than by what has happened to long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the past two years. It has fallen by 78 per cent.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) could not tell us whether he would abolish the minimum wage and whether he agreed with the shadow Chancellor that the Conservatives would put it on hold. He could not say whether they would abandon the new deal or whether they would end the operational independence of the Bank of England. He, too, omitted to mention the fall in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency in the past two years. He is not doing quite so well as the hon. Member for Ashford, but the long-term youth unemployment in his constituency fell by 59 per cent.
I welcome the supportive remarks made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on what we are doing to tackle the skills and research challenge that Britain faces as a consequence of the Conservative years. I welcome, too, his measured remarks and his support for the new deal. I hope that he will not mind my chiding him by saying that I would have welcomed his support for the windfall tax, which paid for the new deal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) congratulated us on four counts on the new deal. I congratulate him on the role that he played in government in introducing the programme. As he said, it is challenging the culture of long-term unemployment. It represents a decisive shift to a proactive welfare state. It is a more effective and humane way of countering claimant fraud, and it is unleashing real enterprise and initiative among staff and other partners who are implementing the programme.
I shall certainly consider each of my right hon. Friend's suggestions seriously. We are already acting on the points that he mentioned. Rather than thinking of the new deal as a mark 1 or mark 2 of welfare reform, we see it as developing and improving all the time. My right hon. Friend argued that people who came back on to the programme within a year should go straight back on an option. I assure him that we are already considering the most appropriate form of follow-through support to ensure that those who really have tried to find work but have not done so receive the continuity of support that they need. We shall ensure that those who are trying to work the system do not get the sympathy from us for doing so that they got from the Conservative party when it was in government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead referred to shortening the gateway. Of course, we are already intensifying the gateway, not least with the £3.5 million announced in the Budget to provide more intensive support. That brings to £5 million the amount of money made available locally for innovation to improve the rate at which young people move through the gateway and into jobs.
My right hon. Friend argued for delegated budgets for local offices and referred explicitly to driving licences. I am pleased to assure him that I issued instructions this

week for a much more permissive rule to be operated to allow more young people to get a driving licence through the new deal, where that can get them into a job.

Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the head of the Government's own skills task force, Chris Humphries, said in a recent letter to the Evening Standard—[Interruption.]—This might be uncomfortable for the right hon. Gentleman, but that is tough. Chris Humphries said:
Expectations that the Government raised are not being met.
Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that that individual made that statement in a newspaper?

Mr. Smith: I have never seen that comment in my life. However, the promises that we made before the general election are promises that are being kept. Our promises are being kept on jobs, on welfare reform and on building a strong and competitive economic base in place of the boom-and-bust failures that we saw during the years of Conservative government.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) spoke with great passion about the situation facing road hauliers. He asked that figures on the competitiveness of the industry be placed in the Library. I shall do what I can to ensure that that is done. He asked about the future programme for the forum. I understand that a further meeting will be held next month, at which I am sure the issues that he raised will be discussed. I shall ensure that a copy of Hansard is drawn to the attention of the forum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) summed up the matter when he said that the new deal was the most ambitious, concentrated and structured programme of help that has ever been available to young unemployed people in this country. With the figures announced today, we now have more than 61,000 young people in sustained jobs through the new deal and more than 58,000 young people taking up other training and work experience options—about 120,000 young people helped forward in their lives, thanks to the new deal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said, the new deal is a quality programme which is making a real difference in the quality of the lives of young people who have been neglected and ignored.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) spoke of the situation in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to reassure him that, a week ago, I met community and voluntary sector representatives from Northern Ireland to address the concerns that he raised. I welcome the support that he gave for today's announcement of extra funding help for the transition in Northern Ireland. We all know that Northern Ireland has been blighted for a long time by some of the worst unemployment in the country, and that has undoubtedly aggravated the sectarian conflict there. If the new deal and the Government's support for a strong economy and a competitive industry can help to play their part in resolving those sectarian differences and sustaining peace, that will be welcomed by the whole House.
We have heard no alternatives to the Government's policies from the official Opposition, but plenty of evidence that the Opposition's credibility is at rock bottom. As my hon. Friends have told us from their experiences in their constituencies, Labour's policies are working, and more of our constituents are working.


That has happened because we have kept our promises—governing, as we promised, to equip Britain for a new world economy. The sound monetary framework that we have established, the tough decisions that we took on public finances, our cuts in corporation tax, our reforms to make work pay, the new deals, the raising of education standards and the investment in skills and science are all putting in place strong foundations for an enterprising and competitive economy, in which flexibility is combined with fairness.
Desperate though the Opposition are to find bad news, the truth is that we have more people in work than ever before. Since the general election, the ILO measure of unemployment has been down in every region. The claimant count has been down in every region since the general selection. Long-term unemployment is down in every region. Long-term youth unemployment is down in every region; we achieved lower long-term youth unemployment in 18 months than the Conservatives could manage in 18 years. Under the Tories, Britain had a post-war record for the number of people out of work; under Labour, there is an all-time record—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 287.

Division No. 159]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam


Bercow, John
Fraser, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Blunt, Crispin
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brady, Graham
Gray, James


Brazier, Julian
Green, Damian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grieve, Dominic


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burns, Simon
Hammond, Philip


Butterfill, John
Hayes, John


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bemard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


&Howden)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lansley, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Leigh, Edward


Duncan Smith, Iain
Letwin, Oliver


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)





Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Loughton, Tim
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Syms, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Madel, Sir David
Trend, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Walter, Robert


May, Mrs Theresa
Wardle, Charles


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Norman, Archie
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Randall, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Woodward, Shaun


Robathan, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)



Ruffley, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainsworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Cohen, Harry


Austin, John
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John(Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim(Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Borrow, David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)


Burnett, John
Dawson, Hilton


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Denham, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Dismore, Andrew


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Cann, Jamie
Drown, Ms Julia


Caplin, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)


Caton, Martin
Efford, Clive


Cawsey, Ian
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)
Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clapham, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Follett, Barbara






Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McIsaac, Shona


Gapes, Mike
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gardiner, Barry
Mackinaly, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWalter, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallabar, Judy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grogan, John
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Maxton, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moffatt, Laura


Hepburn, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heppell, John
Morgon, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hesford, Stephen
Morley, Elliot


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith
Mountford, Kali


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Mike, (N Warks)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Hara, Eddie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Iddon, Dr Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Purchase, Ken


Keetch, Paul
Radice, Giles


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rammell, Bill


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Reed Andrew (Loughborough)


Khabra, Piara S
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kidney, David
Rendel,David


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey(Cov'try NW)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ross, Ernie(Dundee W


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Laxton, Bob
Roy, Frank


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Shaw, Jonathan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sheerman, Barry


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


(Makerfield)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)





Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Timms, Stephen


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tipping, Paddy


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vaz, Keith


Stevenson, George
Ward, Ms Claire


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Stoate, Dr Howard
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Willis, Phil


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wills, Michael


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winnick, David


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wood, Mike


(Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wyatt, Derek


Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 123.

Division No. 160]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burgon, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Denham, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Donohoe, Brian H


Cann, Jamie
Doran, Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Drown, Ms Julia


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caton, Martin
Efford, Clive


Cawsey, Ian
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chaytor, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim






Follett, Barbara
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mallaber, Judy


Galloway, George
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gapes, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gardiner, Barry
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morley, Elliot


Healey, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mountford, Kali


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mudie, George


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hesford, Stephen
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
O'Hara, Eddie


Hill, Keith
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hoon, Geoffrey
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hope, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L


Humble, Mrs Joan
Plaskitt, James


Hutton, John
Pollard, Kerry


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pond, Chris


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Pound, Stephen


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jenkins, Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kemp, Fraser
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kidney, David
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roy, Frank


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lepper, David
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Linton, Martin
Shipley, Ms Debra


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lock, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


(Makerfield)
Soley, Clive


McDonagh, Siobhain
Spellar, John


McDonnell, John
 Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Stevenson, George


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stott, Roger


McNulty, Tony
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin





Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Vaz, Keith


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Ward, Ms Claire


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Willis, Michael


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Eyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Horam, John


Amess, David
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Jackson, Robert(Wantage)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jenkin, Bernard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Keetch, Paul


Baldry, Tony
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Bercow, John
Key, Robert


Beresford, Sir Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgewater)


Blunt, Crispin
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Boswell, Tim
Kirkwook, Archy


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brady, Graham
Lansley, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burnett, John
Loughton, Tim


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cable, Dr Vincent
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cash, William
Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
Mc Loughlin, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan(Kensington)
Madell, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cotter, Brian
Moss, Malcolm,


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Quentin(Grantham)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Paice, James


& Howden)
Paterson, Owen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Randall, John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Rendel, David


Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ruffley, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Shepherd, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Spicer, sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Spring, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Stunell, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Syms, Robert


Green, Damian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Viggers, Peter


Hayes, John
Walter, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wardle, Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Whitney, Sir Raymond






Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the actions of the Government to reverse the industrial decline and the destruction of jobs, not least for young people. that characterised the situation while the Opposition formed the Government; welcomes the creation of over 400,000 jobs since the last election; notes the contrast between this situation and that of the Tory slow-down of 1989 to 1993 when over a million manufacturing jobs were lost; welcomes the achievements of the New Deal and its contribution to the 35 per cent fall since January 1998 in the number of young people unemployed for six months or more; believes that the sound economic policies of this Government are a better way to support industrial success and job creation than the interest rates at 15 per cent, budget deficits soaring, high long-term interest rates and boom and bust economics that were the previous Government's policy; and welcomes the strategy set out in the Competitiveness White Paper for encouraging enterprise, investment and innovation as the right way forward for Britain.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

VALUE ADDED TAX

Ordered,

That the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act. — [Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. David Maclean: I feel that, in the case of all Bills, when a money motion has been tabled, the Minister should say a few words about the financial effects, and should tell the House whether the Government anticipate any changes since the publication of the explanatory notes. I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I feel that we should be told about the financial consequences of Bills, even Bills that have received cross-party support as this Bill has.
I note that, according to the Government's estimate, the total additional administrative expenditure will amount to £100,000 per annum. I believe that that is to pay for the extra civil servants who will be required to administer international football banning orders — [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must call the House to order. This item of business is as worthy of consideration as any other.

Mr. Maclean: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government also calculate that the requirement to report to police stations, and the requirement for the submission of passports, will result in some additional costs, but they say in their explanatory notes that they expect those costs to be minimal. I go along with their forecast, but it would be helpful to hear how much the Government expect the figure to be, if they have a figure in mind. What is "minimal"? Is it less than £10,000, or less than £50,000?
I would also like to know the effects of the banning orders. There will be slight additional costs for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. Again, the Government say that the costs are likely to be minimal, but it would be helpful to know whether "minimal" means less than £100,000, less than £50,000 or less than £10,000. Of course I do not expect to be given a precise figure; it would be unreasonable to ask for one.
I apologise to the Minister and to my hon. Friends if I am wrong about this, but I seem to remember that, when we debated the Bill, a number of Members on both sides of the House spoke of the importance of locking up more of these hooligans. They said that the Bill would catch some people who are not being caught now, and the House was in quite a gung-ho mood about the number of people who would be locked up. Perhaps that was extreme, or optimistic, language; perhaps only some, or indeed none, of those people will actually be locked up. What I need to know from the Minister is this: is it possible that more people will be imprisoned as a result of the Bill? If so, we shall face different costs.


I have no objection to putting more people in prison. I espoused that policy, quite strongly, when I was a Minister. Indeed, I am pleased to say that I helped to contribute to the increased number of people in prison. There has been a record fall in crime —a record since the war—and I am proud that that is continuing. However, if a few more vicious hooligans are put in prison, we shall face greatly increased costs. I know that prison costs are often exaggerated, but it could mean £50,000 per criminal, or a minimum of £30,000 in the case of lower-category offenders.
If the Government have more detailed figures, we would like clarification of the financial effects of the Bill as set out in the explanatory notes. We also want to know whether the Government expect to incur extra imprisonment costs, tagging costs or any other costs relating to the sentencing and storage of the additional number of criminals who may be convicted.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has rightly raised some points about the Bill, which I hope can be dealt with quickly. The Bill originated as a private Member's Bill tabled by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), a member of the right hon. Gentleman's party. It has had its Second Reading, when it received broad support from both sides of the House, and we hope that it will go into Committee next Wednesday. It cannot go further unless this money motion is passed, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
The Bill is intended to deal more effectively with the threat of disorder from those convicted of football-related offences. Banning orders are issued on the instruction of the court following application by the prosecutor on behalf of the police. Additional costs are involved, but they will be absorbed in the criminal justice system. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prison Service always manages to accommodate extra costs arising from the decisions of the court.
It is worth pointing out that any increased costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service would be as a result of preparing a greater number of applications. Those costs are expected to be minimal. We shall go into more detail on what minimal means. As a former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Gentleman should know what minimal means in the overall civil service jargon.
It is anticipated that the restrictions order authority will require an additional four full-time members and one part-time member of staff to deal with the administrative work. The authority's expenses will be met by the Secretary of State under section 21(8) of the Football Spectators Act 1989. The additional administrative costs are anticipated to be approximately £100,000 per annum.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Kate Hoey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am well aware that if I do not, he will probably make a speech. I know that we have 45 minutes, but I think that hon. Members on both sides probably do not want this debate to take 45 minutes.

Mr. Leigh: The promoter of the Bill told the House on Second Reading that he intended to table a provision at a later stage to allow the Government to order the surrender of passports of those as yet not convicted of an offence. Does the Minister think that any extra costs could arise as a result of that provision if it were included in the Bill? What will she do about a money resolution when that provision is introduced?

Kate Hoey: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that has not yet been finally decided, but a decision will be made before next Wednesday. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will make that decision. If that provision were to be included in the Bill, some additional costs would be involved. At the moment it is not in the Bill, so it is not affected by this money motion.
I hope that my explanation is satisfactory, and that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is satisfied. This measure will be given full consideration in Committee, and I ask hon. Members to support it tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Vaux Brewery

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Chris Mullin: This is an unhappy tale: a parable for the fate that has overtaken so much of our manufacturing industry during the past 30 years. It is about a clash of cultures. On the one hand is a long-established, respected company managed by successive generations of the same family, who take the old-fashioned view that their responsibilities extend to their work force and to the public interest as well as to their shareholders. On the other hand are the City institutions, which acknowledge only an obligation to make for themselves and their clients the fastest buck in the shortest possible time, regardless of other considerations.
The struggle at Vaux brewery has been a long one. It was a boardroom battle worthy of a television soap, during which the company has lost its chief executive, its finance director and, eventually, its long-serving chairman. The ending is an unhappy one, because the barbarians have triumphed.
My main purpose tonight is not to influence events—it is probably too late for that. Instead, I intend to place on record a summary of the facts, and to draw attention to a number of issues that arise from what has happened at Vaux, on which I invite the Government to comment. Before doing so, I must pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), in whose constituency the brewery is based. He is unavoidably detained elsewhere. However, I welcome a number of my hon. Friends from the region.
Vaux is one of north-east England's oldest and most respected companies. The brewery employs about 600 people in Sunderland, many of whom are my constituents, and more than 100 in Sheffield. Some years ago, the company successfully diversified into hotels. Before long, its Swallow hotel chain became the mainstay of the group. It is one of the few major companies whose head office remains in the north-east, although for how long remains to be seen.
Vaux has a loyal work force and, at the brewery, a management who are on first-name terms with most of their employees. Industrial relations are good; profits steady, if not spectacular; dividends have increased in each of the 27 years in which Sir Paul Nicholson was chairman. Today, earnings and dividends are more than 10 times higher than they were when Sir Paul took over, in 1971. So let no one say that it is a failing company. As Britain's brewing industry increasingly came under the sway of four big companies, however, Vaux came under pressure from the City to get out of brewing and concentrate instead on hotels.
In June 1998, soon after his 60th birthday, Sir Paul Nicholson stepped down as chief executive, although he stayed on as chairman. A new chief executive, Martin Grant, formally of Allied Domecq, was chosen to replace him. I have met Mr. Grant. He has done enormous damage, but he is charming and plausible, and it is always disappointing that one's demons do not conform to the stereotype.
From the outset, the signs were ominous. Mr. Grant made it clear that he would not be moving to the north-east, despite the fact that Swallow's headquarters is based there. Within a short time of taking over, he advised the company that it should get out of brewing. The board reluctantly agreed. It did, however, express a preference for the company's brewing interests to be sold as a going concern.
At that point, a ray of hope appeared. A management team, led by Frank Nicholson—the joint managing director, and brother of Sir Paul—made a bid for the breweries and certain of the pubs owned by Vaux. Sir Paul very properly took a back seat, in order not to be seen to favour his brother's interests. The management buy-out should have been the solution that satisfied everyone.
Initially, the main fear in Sunderland was that the management would be outbid by one of the four breweries, closed and asset stripped. However, on 20 November 1998—the deadline—we found to our pleasant surprise that none of the big four had made a bid for the entire company, which appeared to leave the field clear for the management buy-out. We had reckoned, however, without Mr. Grant. It soon became clear that Mr. Grant was determined to resist the management buy-out and opt instead for a scorched-earth policy.
In January, Mr. Grant submitted a paper to the board arguing that Vaux was worth £24 million more closed down and asset-stripped than were it to be sold as a going concern. His figures were clearly preposterous, and his advice was rejected. On 15 January, the board opted instead to open negotiations with Frank Nicholson and his management team.
Mr. Grant, however, did not accept defeat. He and the finance director, Mr. Neal Gossage, went behind the backs of the board and bad-mouthed the proposed management buy-out to City institutions with major holdings in Vaux. On 8 February, they were summoned by the board and sacked; but the damage was done.
Following the departure of Messrs Grant and Gossage, a spate of hostile stories began to appear in City pages. In March, the advisers appointed by the company reported back to the board, and it became clear that they were split. One of them was prepared to recommend the management buy-out, but the other declined to, arguing that an extra £15 million—3 or 4 per cent. of the group's market value—could be squeezed out of the assets if they were sold off piecemeal.
I should say that this figure is extremely controversial, and varies according to who one talks to. Specifically, it appears to be based on generous assumptions about the value of the site and the costs of clearing it. Sir Paul Nicholson believes the gap to be nearer £2 million or £3 million. The board, however, by a majority rejected the management bid, and has since rejected a revised offer. Scorched earth is now the most likely outcome.
On 27 March, Sir Paul resigned in disgust. He said:
There can hardly be any parallel where a plant closure has occurred when the board had a reasonable offer from the management.
Goodness knows, we in Sunderland have seen our share of redundancies in recent years, and redundancy is always painful. But what makes Vaux different from just about all the others in my experience is that it is not a loss-making company. The market for its product had not


dried up; on the contrary—I cannot stress this too strongly—it is still a profitable company, for which a reasonable offer was on the table.
What has happened is wilful vandalism. More than 700 people are about to lose their jobs, and a respected trade name is about to disappear, in the hope—that is all that it is —of adding a few pence to the share price on the basis of some extremely controversial assumptions about the likely value of the assets once everything has been dismantled.
Before we start blaming the shareholders, let me explain that there are many Swallow shareholders in Sunderland and elsewhere who are as disgusted as everyone else with what is being done in their names. The problem is that they are outnumbered by the huge block votes wielded by a handful of City institutions, one or two of which, I am sorry to say, control the pension funds of employees, who, if only they had a say, would not approve of what is being done in their name. For the record, I shall name those primarily responsible for this debacle. They are Mercury Asset Management, the Bankers' Trust and Hermes Pensions Management Ltd.—formerly the Post Office pension fund.
As I said at the outset, my principal purpose tonight is to place on record those unfortunate events, which provide a classic example of the unacceptable face of capitalism. A viable company that has traded successfully for 150 years, and for which a realistic offer is on the table, is about to be destroyed by a handful of irresponsible City institutions. Of course, muggings—the taxpayer—will be responsible for the bill for clearing up the mess that will be left behind.
I pay tribute to Frank Nicholson for the heroic efforts that he and his colleagues have made to save the business. Rarely have I come across a business man so highly regarded by those who work for him. I pay tribute too, to Sir Paul Nicholson. As group chairman and brother of Frank, he has obviously been restricted in what he could say and do, but he has left no one in any doubt publicly or privately about where he stands.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has taken a close interest in the matter from the outset. It is a measure of the seriousness with which he takes the issue that he has chosen to reply in person to tonight's debate.
The Government have done all that could reasonably have been expected to save Vaux. From the outset, they have made it clear that a generous offer of regional selective assistance was available to help the management buy-out succeed. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would confirm tonight that the offer is still on the table, in the unlikely event of any new buyer coming forward.
I finish by drawing my right hon. Friend's attention to several wider issues that arise from the affair. First, it has become clear that all the major brewers are in the habit of subsidising the price of their beers to the general market by charging their own estate —that is, the pubs that they own—a premium price. It is perfectly possible, therefore, that the big four might be in a position to put small breweries such as Vaux out of business using what is surely an unfair trading practice. That is a matter in

which the Office of Fair Trading may wish to take an interest. I drew it to the attention of the director general some months ago.
Secondly, it is a matter of record that the irresponsible obsession of City institutions with making the fastest buck in the shortest possible time has infected British business with a culture of short-termism, which has proved deeply damaging to our manufacturing sector. What plans does the Secretary of State, no doubt in consultation with the Chancellor, have for addressing the culture of short-termism in the City?
Thirdly, it is also a matter of record that pension funds do not always operate in a manner of which their members would necessarily approve, or in those members' best interests. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that pension funds are sufficiently accountable to their members?
Fourthly, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would say something about the assistance available from the Government to help to retrain and re-employ the people who will lose their jobs.
I address my final remarks to the board of Vaux—the Swallow Group, as it is now called. Its members will be aware that what has happened to Vaux has caused outrage in Sunderland, not least among many small shareholders. They will also be aware that the calculations on which they have based their decision to close the brewery have been challenged, not least by Sir Paul Nicholson, who was company chairman for 27 years. I put it to them that, at the very least, they owe their employees and the people of Sunderland a detailed explanation. That could best be done by calling an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, and I invite them to do so.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on securing this debate. It is appropriate to bring this matter to the attention of the House this evening. The closure of a firm with more than 150 years of history and the prospect of some 600 job losses merits consideration on the Floor of the House.
First and perhaps most importantly, I want to emphasise that my deepest sympathies lie with those employees at the Vaux brewery, and at the Ward brewery in Sheffield, who stand to lose their jobs. Their interests have been and remain the main focus of our concern as a Government. It is a good reflection of the concern felt in the House that several right hon. and hon. Members are present to listen to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—a Sunderland lad, if I may say so—has taken a great personal interest in the matter. As a Salvationist, he has some difficulty defending the employment of people working in the brewing industry, but he represents the interests of many people in the Sunderland area so I hope that he will be forgiven in the appropriate quarter.
I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) and


for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Between us, we have probably contributed significantly to the profits of Vaux breweries over the years, although I certainly cannot say the same about my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. However, it is not the quality of the beer that brings my hon. Friends to the Chamber this evening, but their concern about the future of brewing in Sunderland and, in particular, of the Vaux brewery.
I also welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is present because of the implications for Sheffield and the Ward brewery. I shall address the issues specifically related to the Vaux brewery, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. In doing so, I do not wish to diminish the difficulties faced by those individuals linked with the Ward brewery. Many of the issues that I shall raise about the Vaux brewery apply also to the Ward brewery.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, many people in the north-east regret the decisions that have been taken. The history and the sequence of the events were clearly explained by my hon. Friend. As he said, I have been fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and have taken a personal interest in the developments. The Department of Trade and Industry was approached at the outset by the management team bidding to buy the breweries. At that time, it was confident that a deal could be done that would save the breweries and the jobs of those who work for them. When it first emerged that financial assistance would be required to secure the future of the breweries, the Government office for the north east quickly responded and made an initial offer of support through regional selective assistance of £1 million.
It subsequently emerged that a significantly larger sum would be needed to try to secure a positive decision to maintain the breweries in Sunderland and in Sheffield. We were prepared to increase the offer of regional selective assistance by an additional £5 million, so that a total of £6 million would be available to a new purchaser of the breweries to secure future employment opportunities. Unfortunately, a mutually acceptable basis for agreement between the Swallow Group and the management buy-out team could not be found. I am deeply saddened that it should have come to that, especially for the employees affected, their families and the wider communities in Sheffield and Sunderland. We have to assume that the Swallow Group considered that alternative courses of action represented the best interests of the shareholders, but many people will share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South about the real motives behind the decision that the Swallow Group has taken.

Mr. Derek Foster: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I was hosting a reception downstairs for 300 people from my old college in Oxford, for which I left Sunderland in 1957.
I congratulate the Government on their speedy and excellent action. They cannot be faulted at all, as they have done everything that has been required. However, as a very small shareholder in the firm, I do not accept that the board has acted in the shareholders' interest. Indeed, it has never put any information before the small shareholders, even though they own at least 15 per cent. of the shares—very nearly the largest tranche of the shares in the company.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will call in the board, and suggest to its members that they have a moral duty to the city of Sunderland—and to the Government, who may have to pick up the bill—to put the facts before the small shareholders so that they can be independently assessed.

Mr. Byers: I shall deal specifically with the relationship between shareholders and the company in a few minutes, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could wait until I reach that part of my contribution. I think that that will be a more helpful way in which to tackle his very genuine concern.
Although we accept that it may be difficult in the days and weeks ahead to find a new buyer for one or both of the breweries, we have not given up hope. Someone who sees the excellent facilities at the both the Vaux and the Ward breweries may well decide that buying and maintaining the breweries would represent a viable commercial opportunity.
The Government's position is very clear. If new options emerge for preserving employment at the breweries, we stand ready to provide assistance. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that the £6 million that we offered a few weeks ago in an attempt to secure the future of the Vaux brewery in Sunderland remains on the table. I hope that someone will come forward, in the days and weeks ahead, and use the £6 million that the Government are prepared to offer to secure the employment of the 600 or more people who presently work at the Vaux brewery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South raised a number of specific issues that I shall address head on this evening. First, he mentioned the possibility of anti-competitive behaviour in the beer market, and suggested that the four big brewers may be acting and exerting influence in a way that would distort that market. My hon. Friend would be absolutely right to draw that possibility to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is exactly the sort of conduct that would be appropriate for him to investigate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South will be aware that it is for the director general to consider the comments that have been made, and to decide whether an investigation should be carried out. However, I am confident that the director general will look carefully at what has been said in this debate, and at any further information that may be passed to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South also raised the issue of action by certain large City institutions. The Government are very much aware of how such institutions can operate, and of those institutions' powerful position in relation to matters such as this.
We are considering ways in which to make the market for investment work more effectively as part of our wider agenda of increasing growth and jobs in the UK by improving productivity. We want City institutions to recognise that a short-term approach is often neither in the interests of individual companies that might be affected at the time nor in the long-term interests of City institutions themselves or the wider UK economy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned the position of small shareholders and the possibility that the views of a minority of shareholders


may be ignored by those who command block votes. The 1998 pre-Budget report introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed ways in which to bring greater transparency, responsibility and accountability to the relationship between institutional investors and the fund managers they employ. That work is being progressed right now. There are real issues about the interests and rights of small shareholders.
There are no easy or quick answers in this area. However, I can assure the House that I will talk personally to investors and fund managers about the points raised in the pre-Budget report and in the debate tonight about productivity and corporate governance.

Mr. Alan Campbell: On short-termism and regional assistance, I know that my right hon. Friend shares my concern about today's decision by Siemens to invest in a plant in France rather than on north Tyneside. Quite apart from the fact that the French factory will not be making the same product as the north Tyneside one, that suggests an appalling lack of commitment by Siemens to finding a secure future for the plant and for the work force.
Regional assistance is given to companies, and I welcome the decision to reclaim £18 million from Siemens. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that if regional assistance is given—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about Vaux breweries, not regional assistance in the north-east.

Mr. Byers: I note your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but may I say that we are offering regional selective assistance in relation to Vaux breweries? One reason why we are able to do so from our own budget, at £6 million, is that we will, with great vigour, reclaim £18 million provided to Siemens. Siemens has failed to meet employment conditions attached to regional selective assistance and will be required to repay the money. I can give my hon. Friends that assurance. We will also look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the Siemens decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South mentioned the support that might be given to individuals who may, after all our efforts, lose their jobs as a result of any decision to close the brewery. The company announced last week that redundancies would take place. Meetings have occurred between the company, the local training and enterprise council, the Employment Service and the local authority. I commend the work of Sunderland city council in endeavouring to secure the future of the Vaux brewery.
The Government office for the north east stands ready to handle sympathetically requests for assistance that emerge from those discussions. The Government have put

in place special rapid response measures which can be deployed when there are redundancies on this scale. They have been highly successful in previous cases, such as those of Fujitsu and Siemens. We will do all we can to help the people affected to find new employment and will put rapid response measures in place.
Sunderland as well as Sheffield will take the heaviest blow as a result of the decision to close the brewery. We understand the difficulties that the city, its surrounding areas and, indeed, the community face. But in Sunderland there has been some good news as well as bad news recently. My hon. Friend referred to the devastating impact in Sunderland of the decline in the shipbuilding industry, but Sunderland has been reborn since the closure of that very important industry. New jobs have been found and Sunderland is still a good place to do business. We have seen with Nissan, the most productive car plant in Europe, the potential that exists in the north-east of England. Nissan is currently recruiting to build its third model in Sunderland, with 800 new jobs being created as a result. That is good news for Sunderland and is a positive endorsement of the benefits of locating there.
In other areas of manufacturing, there has been good news as well, from the manufacture of pumps and plastics to ships' cranes by Liebherr. The service sector is also set to create several hundred jobs. This is all good news, as is the fact that the Government and the European Union will continue to provide funds to promote economic regeneration.
The current north-east of England objective 2 programme contains packages of projects targeted directly at the Sunderland area which, if all taken up, could utilise over £32 million in grants from the European regional development fund and the European social fund. That is £32 million that will be used specifically for the purposes of economic regeneration and job creation.
I have no doubt that if the Vaux brewery in Sunderland is ultimately closed, it will be a major blow. No one can ignore that fact. But it is also clear that the north-east has many strengths. One of them is resilience in the face of hostility and adversity. There is a good news story to tell about the north-east. For some of us, it is a community that we joined and have been welcomed into. For many people, it is where they have spent their whole life. There are many strengths in the north-east. It is those strengths that will be called on in difficult times as well as in good times.
My Department stands ready to help the communities affected. We will not stand to one side and see communities being devastated—

The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past Eight o'clock.